Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Social Perception of Humanoid and Non-Humanoid Robots: Effects of Gendered and Machinelike Features

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous research has shown that features of synthetic robot faces suggesting social categories produce predictable and consequential social judgments. Artificial robot faces that are feminine (versus masculine) and humanlike (versus machinelike) have been shown to be judged as warmer and to produce relatively higher levels of comfort, resulting in positive evaluations and a greater desire for engagement. Two studies pursued these questions using images of real robots. In Study 1, images of existing robots were used to manipulate gendered features and machineness. Study 2 used an assortment of images of real robots including non-humanoid exemplars that vary naturally in gendered features and machineness. Consistent results emerged from the two studies. In both studies, robots were evaluated more positively and produced a greater desire for contact to the degree that they were seen as humanlike and feminine. These results attest to the importance of social factors in predicting responses to robots. Implications for robot design and future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Unlike the stimuli used in our previous research, the robotic stimuli used here were selected to be roughly equal on the theoretical variables of interest—gendered features and machineness—while varying in many other respects. It was expected that results would vary across the two replications. Indeed, the goal was to see if these theoretical variables would influence social judgments of robots in spite of the numerous differences between the robots that comprised each gender typicality/machineness category. Replication was included as a methodological factor in preliminary statistical analyses, and results were examined to assess whether any reported effects were eliminated or reversed for either set of robotic stimuli. In no case did this occur. Accordingly, we focus on the theoretical variables of interest in our reporting of results. Complete statistical results can be obtained from the first author.

  2. For both studies, we conducted preliminary analyses to assess whether the participants’ gender qualified any of the reported results. Participant gender main effects were obtained in both studies, generally showing that male participants rated robots as higher on measures of warmth, liking, and contact desirability. Participant gender did not interact with any other variables, however, indicating that our reported effects did not vary for men and women. Complete statistical results can be obtained from the first author.

References

  1. Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114:864–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Grahl A, Greiner U, Walla P (2012) Bottle shape elicits gender-specific emotion: a startle reflex modulation study. Psychology 3:548–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Leder H, Carbon CC (2005) Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design. Appl Cogn Psychol 19:603–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carpinella CM, Wyman AB, Perez MA, Stroessner SJ (2017) The robotic social attributes scale (RoSAS): development and validation. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE intern conference on human–robot interaction, pp 254–262

  5. Benitez J, Wyman AB, Carpinella CM, Stroessner SJ (2017) The authority of appearance: how robot features influence trait inferences and evaluative responses. In: IEEE international symposium on robot and human inter communication (RO–MAN)

  6. Brewer MB (1988) A dual process model of impression formation. In: Srull TK, Wyer RS Jr (eds) Advances in social cognition, vol 1. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 1–36

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fiske ST, Neuberg SL (1990) A continuum model of impression formation from category-based to individuation processes: influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 23. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–74

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bodenhausen GV, Kang SK, Peery D (2012) Social categorization and the perception of social groups. In: Fiske ST, Macrae CN (eds) SAGE handbook of social cognition. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 311–329

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Carpenter J, Davis JM, Erwin-Stewart N, Lee TR, Bransford JD, Vye N (2009) Gender representation and humanoid robots designed for domestic use. Int J Soc Robot 1:261–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eyssel F, Hegel F (2012) (S)he’s got the look: gender stereotyping of robots. J Appl Soc Psychol 42:2213–2230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D (2012) Social categorization of social robots: anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. Br J Soc Psychol 51:724–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56:81–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nass C, Moon Y, Green N (1997) Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. J Appl Soc Psychol 27:864–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:71–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJ, Glick P (2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends in Cogn Sci 11:77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pan MKXJ, Croft E.A., Niemeyer, G. (2018). Evaluating social perception of human-to-robot handovers using the Robot Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS). In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE intern conference on human–robot interaction, pp 443–451

  17. Hoffmann L, Bock N, Rosenthal von der Pütten A (2018) The peculiarities of robot embodiment (EmCorp-Scale): development, validation and initial test of the embodiment and corporeality of artificial agents scale. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE intern conference on human–robot interaction pp 370–378

  18. Schneider DJ (2004) The psychology of stereotyping. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stroessner SJ, Benitez J, Perez MA, Carpinella CM, Wyman AB, Johnson KL (2017) What’s in a shape? Evidence of gender categorization of basic forms (manuscript submitted for publication)

  20. Eyssel FA (2016) An experimental psychological perspective on social robotics. Robot Auton Syst 87:363–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nass C, Yen C (2010) The man who lied to his laptop: what machines teach us about human relationships. Penguin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rule NO, Sutherland SL (2017) Social categorization from faces: evidence from obvious and ambiguous groups. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 26:231–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Johnson KL, Tassinary LG (2007) Compatibility of basic social perceptions determines perceived attractiveness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:5246–5251

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Disney Research supported this research, and it was reviewed and approved by the Disney Research IRB.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Steven J. Stroessner

  2. Department of Communication, 2225 Rolfe Hall, University of California, Los Angeles, Box 951538, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1538, USA

    Jonathan Benitez

Authors
  1. Steven J. Stroessner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan Benitez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven J. Stroessner.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stroessner, S.J., Benitez, J. The Social Perception of Humanoid and Non-Humanoid Robots: Effects of Gendered and Machinelike Features. Int J of Soc Robotics 11, 305–315 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0502-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0502-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation