Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individuals’ Evaluations of and Attitudes Towards Potentially Uncanny Robots

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

Abstract

In the present work we provide an overview and categorization of explanatory approaches for the uncanny valley effect and present an empirical study. Against the background of the uncanny valley hypothesis, the study utilized qualitative interviews in which participants were presented with pictures and videos of potentially uncanny humanoid and android robots to explore participants’ evaluations of very human-like robots, their attitudes about these robots, and their emotional reactions towards these robots. In this regard, the influence of the robots’ appearance, movement and the context of HRI were examined. Results showed that, contrasting the hypothesis, participants reported not only negative, but also positive emotional reactions towards the possibly uncanny robots. The robots’ appearance was of great importance for the participants, because certain characteristics were equalized with certain abilities, merely human appearance without a connected functionality was not appreciated, and human rules of attractiveness were applied to the android robots. The analysis also demonstrated the importance of the robots’ movements and the social context they were placed in. The importance of two possible causes and explanations of the uncanny valley, namely uncertainty at category boundaries (cf. Ramey in Proceedings of views of the uncanny valley workshop: IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, 2005; Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 long symposium “Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science”, 2006) and subconscious fears of being replaced (cf. MacDorman & Ishiguro in Interact Stud 7(3):297–337, 2006) were explored in this work. On this reflective level of evaluation we found some support for the assumptions that participants experienced uncertainty how to categorize android robots (as human or machine) and that some (but not all) participants felt uncomfortable at the thought to be replaced by robots.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4):33–35

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N (2012) The uncanny valley. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 19(2):98–100. doi:10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brenton M, Gillies M, Ballin D, Chatting D (2005) The Uncanny valley: does it exist? In: Proceedings of the 19th British HCI group annual conference: workshop on human-animated character interaction

  4. Hanson D (2006) Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots. In: Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 long symposium: toward social mechanisms of android science, pp 39–42

  5. Pollick FE (2010) In search of the uncanny valley. In: Daras P, Ibarra OM (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international conference on user centric media, revised selected papers. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 69–78

  6. Bartneck C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Is the uncanny valley an uncanny cliff? In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international conference on robot & human interactive communication. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp 368–373. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415111

  7. Gee FC, Browne WN, Kawamura K (2005) Uncanny valley revisited. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE workshop on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, Nashville, TN, pp 151–157. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513772

  8. Ishiguro H (2006) Interactive humanoids and androids as ideal interfaces for humans. In: Paris CL, Sidner CL, Edmonds E et al. (eds) IUI ’06. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. ACM Press, New York, pp 2–9. doi:10.1145/1111449.1111451

  9. Ramey CH (2006) An inventory of reported characteristics for home computers, robots, and human beings: applications for android science and the uncanny valley. In: MacDorman KF, Ishiguro H (eds) Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 long symposium “Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science”, pp 21–25

  10. Freud S (2003) The uncanny. In: Phillips A (ed) The uncanny. Penguin Books, New York, pp 123–159

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jentsch E (1997) On the psychology of the uncanny (1906). Angelaki J Theor Humanit 2(1):7–16. doi:10.1080/09697259708571910

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Bartneck C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) My robotic doppelgänger—a critical look at the uncanny valley theory. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, pp 269–276. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326351

  13. Noma M, Saiwaki N, Itakura S, Ishiguro H (2006) Composition and evaluation of the humanlike motions of an android. In: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, pp 163–168. doi:10.1109/ICHR.2006.321379

  14. Minato T, Shimada M, Ishiguro H, Itakura S (2004) Development of an android robot for studying human–robot interaction. In: Orchard B, Yang C, Moonis A (eds) Innov in Appl Artif Intel. Springer, New York, pp 424–434. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24677-0_44

  15. Burleigh TJ, Schoenherr JR, Lacroix GL (2013) Does the uncanny valley exist? An empirical test of the relationship between eeriness and the human likeness of digitally created faces. Comput Hum Behav 29(3):759–771. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cheetham M, Pavlovic I, Jordan N, Suter P, Jäncke L (2013) Category processing and the human likeness dimension of the uncanny valley hypothesis: eye-tracking data. Front Psychol 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00108

  17. Cheetham M, Suter P, Jäncke L (2011) The human likeness dimension of the “uncanny valley hypothesis”: behavioral and functional MRI findings. Front Hum Neurosci 5. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00126

  18. MacDorman KF, Green RD, Ho C, Koch CT (2009) Too real for comfort: uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Comput Hum Behav 25:695–710. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Saygin AP, Chaminade T, Ishiguro H, Driver J, Frith CD (2012) The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 7(4):413–422. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Seyama J, Nagayama RS (2007) The uncanny valley: effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 16(4):337–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. MacDorman KF, Ishiguro H (2006) The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interact Stud 7(3):297–337. doi:10.1075/is.7.3.03mac

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Minsky M (1975) A framework for representing knowledge. In: Winston PH (ed) The psychology of computer vision. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 211–277

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rozin P, Fallon AE (1987) A perspective on disgust. Psychol Rev 94(1):23–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rozin P, Haidt J, McCauley C, Dunlop L, Ashmore M (1999) Individual differences in disgust sensitivity: comparisons and evaluations of paper-and-pencil versus behavioral measures. J Res Personal 33(3):330–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nesse RM (2005) Natural selection and the regulation of defenses: a signal detection analysis of the smoke detector principle. Evol Hum Behav 26(1):88–105. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.002

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Schaller M, Park JH (2011) The behavioral immune system (and why it matters). Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20(2):99–103. doi:10.1177/0963721411402596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ramey CH (2005) The uncanny valley of similarities concerning abortion, baldness, heaps of sand, and humanlike robots. In: Proceedings of views of the uncanny valley workshop: IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, Tsukuba, Japan, pp 8–13

  28. Aquino J (2011) Nine jobs that humans may lose to robots. Downside: a replicant may be watching your kid; upside: fewer lawyers. www.nbcnews.com

  29. Sherman E (2013) Robots are going to take your job. www.cbsnews.com

  30. Sharkey N (2008) The ethical frontiers of robotics. Science 322(5909):1800–1801. doi:10.1126/science.1164582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sharkey N, Sharkey A (2010) Robot nannies get a wheel in the door: a response to the commentaries. Interact Stud 11:302–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sharkey N, Sharkey A (2010) The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal. Interact Stud 11:161–190. doi:10.1075/is.11.2.01sha

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K (2005) People’s assumptions about robots: investigation of their relationships with attitudes and emotions toward robots. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp 125–130. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513768

  34. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interact Stud 7(3):437–454. doi:10.1075/is.7.3.14nom

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nomura T, Shintani T, Fujii K, Hokabe K (2007) Experimental investigations of relationships between anxiety, negative attitudes, and allowable distance of robots. In: Cunliffe D (ed) Proceedings of the 2nd IASTED international conference on human–computer interaction. ACTA Press, Anaheim, pp 13–18

  36. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2007) Measurement of anxiety toward robots. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE Press; IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp 372–377. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314462

  37. Ho C, MacDorman KF, Pramono Z (2008) Human emotion and the uncanny valley: a GLM, MDS, and Isomap analysis of robot video ratings. In: Fong T, Dautenhahn K, Scheutz M et al (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. ACM, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 169–176

  38. Carpenter J, Davis J, Erwin-Stewart N, Lee T, Bransford J, Vye N (2009) Gender representation and humanoid robots designed for domestic use. Int J Soc Robot 1(3):261–265. doi:10.1007/s12369-009-0016-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sobieraj S (2012) What is virtually beautiful is good-Der Einfluss physiognomischer und nonverbaler Gesichtsmerkmale auf die Attribution von Attraktivität, sozialer Kompetenz und Dominanz. PhD thesis, University of Duisburg-Essen

  40. Dautenhahn K, Woods SN, Kaouri C, Walters ML, Koay KL, Werry I (2005) What is a robot companion—friend, assistant or butler? In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE Operations Center, Piscataway, NJ, pp 1488–1493. doi:10.1109/IROS.2005.1545189

  41. MacDorman KF (2006) Subjective ratings of robot video clips for human likeness, familarity, and eeriness: an exploration of the uncanny valley. In: Proceedings of the toward social mechanisms of android science ICCS/CogSci-2006 long symposium, pp 26–29

  42. Lohse M, Hegel F, Swadzba A, Rohlfing KJ, Wachsmuth S, Wrede B (2007) What can I do for you? Appearance and application of robots. In: Proceedings of the reign of catz and dogz? The role of virtual creatures in a computerised society, symposium at AISB’07, pp 121–126

  43. Schermerhorn P, Scheutz M, Crowell CR (2008) Robot social presence and gender: do females view robots differently than males? In: Fong T, Dautenhahn K, Scheutz M et al (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. ACM, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 263–270

  44. Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2006) The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc 21(1–2):217–230. doi:10.1007/s00146-006-0052-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bartneck C (2008) Who like androids more: Japanese or US Americans? In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp 553–557. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600724

  46. Mavridis N, Katsaiti M, Naef S, Falasi A, Nuaimi A, Araifi H, Kitbi A (2012) Opinions and attitudes toward humanoid robots in the Middle East. AI Soc 27(4):517–534. doi:10.1007/s00146-011-0370-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Han J, Shin N, Burke JL, Kato K (2008) What people assume about humanoid and animal-type robots: cross-cultural analysis between Japan, Korea, and the United States. Int J Humanoid Robot 05(01):25–46. doi:10.1142/S0219843608001297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Piaget J (1951) The child’s conception of the world. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  49. Woods SN, Dautenhahn K, Schulz J (2004) The design space of robots: investigating children’s views. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp 47–52. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374728

  50. Kahn PH, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Freier N, Severson RL, Gill BT, Ruckert JH, Shen S (2012) “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev Psychol 48(2):303–314. doi:10.1037/a0027033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Jipson JL, Gelman SA (2007) Robots and rodents: children’s inferences about living and nonliving kinds. Child Dev 78(6):1675–1688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Beran TN, Ramirez-Serrano A, Kuzyk R, Fior M, Nugent S (2011) Understanding how children understand robots: perceived animism in child–robot interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 69(7):539–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bernstein D, Crowley K (2008) Searching for signs of intelligent life: an investigation of young children’s beliefs about robot intelligence. J Learn Sci 17(2):225–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Scopelliti M, Giuliani MV, D’Amico AM, Fornara F (2004) If I had a robot at home\({\ldots }\) peoples’ representation of domestic robots. In: Keates S, Clarkson JP, Langdon P et al (eds) Designing a more inclusive world. Springer, London, pp 257–266. doi:10.1007/978-0-85729-372-5_26

  55. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. Krippendorff K (1980) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  57. MacDorman KF (2005) Mortality salience and the uncanny valley. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots. IEEE Operations Center, Piscataway, NJ, pp 399–405. doi:10.1109/ICHR.2005.1573600

  58. Rosenthal-von der Pütten AM, Krämer NC (2014) How design characteristics of robots determine evaluation and uncanny valley related responses. Comput Hum Behav 36:422–439. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. MacDorman KF (2005) Androids as an experimental apparatus: why is there an uncanny valley and can we exploit it? In: Proceedings of the Cog Sci 2005 workshop: toward social mechanisms of android science, pp 106–118

  60. Ickes W (1997) Empathic accuracy. The Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  61. Handelman M, Hoberman D, Lieberman T, Mostow J (2009) Surrogates. Touchstone Pictures, Burbank

    Google Scholar 

  62. Powers A, Kramer A, Lim S, Kuo J, Sau-lai L, Kiesler S (2005) Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In: ROMAN 2005. IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 158–163. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513773

  63. McDorman KF, Vasudevan SK, Ho C (2009) Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI Soc 23(4):485–510. doi:10.1007/s00146-008-0181-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Kahn PH, Gary HE, Shen S (2013) Children’s Social Relationships With Current and Near-Future Robots. Child Dev Perspect 7(1):32–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a doctoral fellowship of the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes (German National Academic Foundation).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Duisburg-Essen, Forsthausweg 2, 47048, Duisburg, Germany

    Astrid M. Rosenthal-von der Pütten & Nicole C. Krämer

Authors
  1. Astrid M. Rosenthal-von der Pütten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicole C. Krämer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Astrid M. Rosenthal-von der Pütten.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 1107 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A.M., Krämer, N.C. Individuals’ Evaluations of and Attitudes Towards Potentially Uncanny Robots. Int J of Soc Robotics 7, 799–824 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0321-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0321-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation