Social robots as depictions of social agents

Clark, Herbert H.; Fischer, Kerstin

doi:10.1017/s0140525x22000668

Cited by 38 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 360 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is worth noting that in both experiments, 5year-olds classified the robot as mechanical but still chose to learn from it over an incompetent human. This finding confirms the robustness of the bias for epistemic characteristics at 5 years of age and that children at this age perceive the robot as a depiction of a social agent, much like adults do (Clark & Fischer, 2022). Furthermore, children's ratings of the robot as mechanical correlated positively with children's performance on the selective trust task.…”

Section: Trust and Informants' Characteristicssupporting

confidence: 72%

“…Specifically, though not alive (i.e., a biological entity), robots have characteristics of both biological and mechanical objects. Like in the present studies, robots often look and act like social agents (e.g., speaking, gesturing), so they are conceptualized as depictions of social agents (Clark & Fischer, 2022). This appears to be the case regardless of the appearance of the robot, as shown by the fact that the 3-year-olds treated both robots as equally trustworthy.…”

Section: Trust and Informants' Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

People do not always know best: Preschoolers’ trust in social robots

Baumann¹,

Goldman²,

Meltzer³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we investigated whether preschoolers prefer to learn from a competent robot over an incompetent human using a selective word-learning task (Koenig & Harris, 2004). An adapted naive biology task was administered to assess children’s perception of robots (Gottfried & Gelman, 2005). In Study 1, 50 3-year-olds and 45 5-year-olds (51 males) were tested. The sample was half Caucasian and of mostly high socio-economic status. A social, humanoid robot (Nao) first labeled familiar objects correctly while a human informant labeled them incorrectly. Both informants then labeled unfamiliar objects with novel labels. It was found that 3-year-old children equally endorsed the labels provided by the robot and the human, but 5-year-old children learned significantly more from the competent robot. Interestingly, 5-year-olds endorsed Nao’s labels even though they accurately categorized the robot as having a mechanical inside. In contrast, 3-year-old children associated Nao with biological or mechanical insides equally. In Study 2, 43 3-year-olds (26 males) were tested to determine the impact of human-like appearance on 3-year-olds’ selective trust. This sample was primarily Caucasian and with high socioeconomic status. The procedure was identical, except that a non-humanoid robot, Cozmo, replaced Nao. It was found that 3-year-old children still trusted the robot and the human equally, suggesting that morphology does not play a key role in their selective learning strategies. It is concluded that by 5 years of age, preschoolers show a robust sensitivity to epistemic characteristics, but that younger children’s decisions are equally driven by the agency characteristics of the informant.

show abstract

Section: Trust and Informants' Characteristicssupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Trust and Informants' Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 83%

People do not always know best: Preschoolers’ trust in social robots

Baumann¹,

Goldman²,

Meltzer³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That said, the paper recognises that it is possible to deceive without intention, but again argues the deception comes not from the robot per se; instead the deception arises from the design and programming of the arXiv:2308.04581v1 [cs.RO] 8 Aug 2023 robot, the circumstances to create the deception, and the users participation in the deception [23]. Similar arguments liken social robots to that of puppets, in which people interact with the object as if they are social agents [24], actively participating in the deception.…”

Section: B Can a Social Robot Be Trusted?mentioning

confidence: 97%

The effect of social-cognitive recovery strategies on likability, capability and trust in social robots

Cameron

Saille

Collins

et al. 2021

Computers in Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As robots become more prevalent, particularly in complex public and domestic settings, they will be increasingly challenged by dynamic situations that could result in performance errors. Such errors can have a harmful impact on a user's trust and confidence in the technology, potentially reducing use and preventing full realisation of its benefits. A potential countermeasure, based on social psychological concepts of trust, is for robots to demonstrate self-awareness and ownership of their mistakes to mitigate the impact of errors and increase users' affinity towards the robot. We describe an experiment examining 326 people's perceptions of a mobile guide robot that employs synthetic social behaviours to elicit trust in its use after error. We find that a robot that identifies its mistake, and communicates its intention to rectify the situation, is considered by observers to be more capable than one that simply apologises for its mistake. However, the latter is considered more likeable and, uniquely, increases people's intention to use the robot. These outcomes highlight that the complex and multifaceted nature of trust in human-robot interaction may extend beyond established approaches considering robots' capability in performance and indicate that social cognitive models are valuable in developing trustworthy synthetic social agents.

show abstract

“…In a recent article, Clark and Fischer (2022) concluded that “the more social cues robots display, the more competent they are judged to be by adults” (p. 19). Existing literature suggests that children react to robots in a similar way.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preschoolers’ anthropomorphizing of robots: Do human-like properties matter?

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior work has yielded contradicting evidence regarding the age at which children consistently and correctly categorize things as living or non-living. The present study tested children’s animacy judgments about robots with a Naïve Biology task. In the Naïve Biology task, 3- and 5-year-olds were asked if robots, animals, or artifacts possessed mechanical or biological internal parts. To gauge how much children anthropomorphize robots in comparison to animals and artifacts, children also responded to a set of interview questions. To examine the role of morphology, two robots were used: a humanoid robot (Nao) and a non-humanoid robot (Dash). To investigate the role of dynamic characteristics, children saw one robot behave in a goal-directed manner (i.e., moving towards a ball) and one robot exhibit non-goal-directed behavior (i.e., moving away from a ball). Children of both age groups correctly attributed biological insides to the animal and mechanical insides to the artifact. However, 3-year-olds seemed confused about what belonged inside both robots and assigned biological and mechanical insides equally. In contrast, 5-year-olds correctly assigned mechanical insides to both robots, regardless of the robot’s morphology or goal-directedness. Regarding the Animacy Interview, 3-year-olds performed at chance level when asked about the animacy of robots, animals, and artifacts. In contrast, 5-year-olds correctly attributed animacy to animals and accurately refrained from anthropomorphizing artifacts and the non-humanoid robot Dash. However, 5-year-olds performed at chance for Nao, suggesting they may be confused about the psychological properties of a human-looking robot. Taken together, these findings reveal a developmental transition during the preschool years in the attribution of biological and psychological properties to social robot.

show abstract

Social robots as depictions of social agents

Cited by 38 publications

References 360 publications

People do not always know best: Preschoolers’ trust in social robots

People do not always know best: Preschoolers’ trust in social robots

The effect of social-cognitive recovery strategies on likability, capability and trust in social robots

Preschoolers’ anthropomorphizing of robots: Do human-like properties matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About