Social categorization of social robots: Anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership

Abstract

Previous work on social categorization has shown that people often use cues such as a person's gender, age, or ethnicity to categorize and form impressions of others. The present research investigated effects of social category membership on the evaluation of humanoid robots. More specifically, participants rated a humanoid robot that either belonged to their in-group or to a national out-group with regard to anthropomorphism (e.g., mind attribution, warmth), psychological closeness, contact intentions, and design. We predicted that participants would show an in-group bias towards the robot that ostensibly belonged to their in-group--as indicated by its name and location of production. In line with our hypotheses, participants not only rated the in-group robot more favourably--importantly, they also anthropomorphized it more strongly than the out-group robot. Our findings thus document that people even apply social categorization processes and subsequent differential social evaluations to robots.

A receptionist robot for Brazilian people: study on interaction involving illiterates

“…While there is no issue about ethnicity of a robot with a mechanical appearance such as KOBIAN, the impression of the robot may be different depending on its nationality [26,39]. Therefore, it will be introduced as Brazilian, and speak Brazilian Portuguese like the other receptionist.…”

Groups of humans and robots: Understanding membership preferences and team formation

“…In addition, studies on HRI have confirmed that social categorisation processes associated with groups also generalise to social robots. By manipulating group membership, Eyssel et al (2012) showed that people anthropomorphise and prefer an in-group robot to a greater extent than an out-group robot [10]. Chang et al (2012) studied the type of behaviour that humans chose to adopt (competitive or cooperative) depending on group size (a group of humans or an individual human player).…”

“…However, for that to be possible, robots must be endowed with social competencies and advanced interaction capabilities. Significant work is currently being performed in which robots act as team members [4,10,12], extending the boundaries of embodied interactions and making them more meaningful and human-like. In the future, we may use robot companions to foster social relationships through deeper long-term interactions.…”

Anthropomorphic Interfaces on Automation Trust, Dependence, and Performance inYounger and Older Adults

“…The attribution of human-like qualities makes technology susceptible to stereotyping based on appearance and etiquette (e.g., Eyssel & Kuchenbrandt, 2012). For example, when a male or female anthropomorphic computerized aid was included in a trivia task, participants were more likely to trust the male aid's suggestions and ranked the female aid as less competent (Lee, 2008).…”

“…Researchers investigated the role of working memory in an automated UAV task by varying task load (low, high) and automation reliability (manual, reliable, and automation failure). Participants completed both the Operation Span (OPSAN) and Spatial Span (SSPAN) working memory tests (Engle, 2002). Researchers found a significant correlation with OSPAN scores and performance on the automated task.…”