skip to main content
10.1145/1349822.1349831acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Concepts about the capabilities of computers and robots: a test of the scope of adults' theory of mind

Published: 12 March 2008 Publication History

Abstract

We have previously demonstrated that people apply fundamentally different concepts to mechanical agents and human agents, assuming that mechanical agents engage in more location-based, and feature-based behaviors whereas humans engage in more goal-based, and category-based behavior. We also found that attributions about anthropomorphic agents such as robots are very similar to those about computers, unless subjects are asked to attend closely to specific intentional-appearing behaviors. In the present studies, we ask whether subjects initially do not attribute intentionality to robots because they believe that temporary limits in current technology preclude real intelligent behavior. In addition, we ask whether a basic categorization as an artifact affords lessened attributions of intentionality. We find that subjects assume that robots created with future technology may become more intentional, but will not be fully equivalent to humans, and that even a fully human-controlled robot will not be as intentional as a human. These results suggest that subjects strongly distinguish intelligent agents based on intentionality, and that the basic living/mechanical distinction is powerful enough, even in adults, to make it difficult for adults to assent to the possibility that mechanical things can be fully intentional.

References

[1]
Lee, S. L., Kiesler, S., Lau, I. Y. & Chiu, C. Y. 2005. Human mental models of humanoid robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2005 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Barcelona, Spain, April, 2003). 2767--2772
[2]
Bruce, A., Nourbakhsh, I. and Simmons, R. 2002. The role of expressiveness and attention in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (May, 2002), 4138--4142, May 2002.
[3]
Dennett, D. 1991. Consciousness Explained, Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.
[4]
Searle, J. 1984. Minds, Brains, and Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[5]
Gopnik, A., and Wellman, H.M. 1992. Why the child's theory of mind is really a theory. Mind and Language, 7, 145--171.
[6]
Gopnik, A., Slaughter, V., and Meltzoff, A. 1994. Changing your views: How understanding visual perception can lead to a new theory of the mind. In Origins of an understanding of mind, C. Lewis & P. Mitchell Eds. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 157--181.
[7]
Barr, D. and Keysar, B. 2005. Mindreading in an Exotic Case: The Normal Adult Human. In Other Minds: How Humans Bridge the Divide between Self and Others, B. F. Malle and S. D. Hodges Eds. New York, Guilford Press, 271--283.
[8]
Levin, D.T., and Beck, M.R. 2004. Thinking about seeing: Spanning the difference between metacognitive failure and success. In Thinking and Seeing: Visual Metacognition in Adults and Children, D.T. Levin Ed. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
[9]
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81--103.
[10]
Johnson, S.C. 2003. Detecting agents. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B., 358, 549--559.
[11]
Woodward, A.L. 1998. Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach, Cognition, 69, 1--34.
[12]
Branigan, H.P., Pickering, M.J., Pearson, J., McLean, J.F., and Nass, C.I. 2003. Syntactic alignment between computers and people: The role of belief about mental states. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Boston, MA, July 2003).
[13]
Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Carney, P. 1993. Are respondents polite to computers? Social desirability and direct responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1093--1110.
[14]
Barrett, J. L. and Keil, F.C. 1996. Conceptualizing a non-natural entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 219--247.
[15]
Levin, D.T., Saylor, M.M., Killingsworth, S.K., Gordon, S., & Kawamura, K. in prep. Predictions about the behavior of computers, robots, and people: How does intentionality affect what people think something will do?
[16]
Bloom, P. 1997. Intentionality and word learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 9--12.
[17]
Sloman, S.A. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3--22.
[18]
Levin, D.T. in prep. Intention and Capacity: A dual heuristic framework for visual metaknowledge.
[19]
Killingsworth, S.S., Saylor, M.M., & Levin, D.T. in review. Intentional understanding through a machine's eyes.
[20]
Herberg, J.S., Saylor, M.M., Ratanaswasd, P, Levin, D.T., & Wilkes, D.M. in review. Audience-contingent variation in action demonstrations for humans and computers.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)The roles of cognitive dissonance and normative reasoning in attributions of minds to robotsCognitive Research: Principles and Implications10.1186/s41235-024-00604-39:1Online publication date: 12-Dec-2024
  • (2022)Configuring Humans: What Roles Humans Play in HRI Research2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889496(478-492)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2022
  • (2020)“I just shared your responses”Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33751884:GROUP(1-18)Online publication date: 4-Jan-2020
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Concepts about the capabilities of computers and robots: a test of the scope of adults' theory of mind

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    HRI '08: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction
    March 2008
    402 pages
    ISBN:9781605580173
    DOI:10.1145/1349822
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 12 March 2008

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. cognitive modeling/science
    2. philosophical foundations of hri
    3. user modeling and awareness

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    HRI '08
    HRI '08: International Conference on Human Robot Interaction
    March 12 - 15, 2008
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)20
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
    Reflects downloads up to 21 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)The roles of cognitive dissonance and normative reasoning in attributions of minds to robotsCognitive Research: Principles and Implications10.1186/s41235-024-00604-39:1Online publication date: 12-Dec-2024
    • (2022)Configuring Humans: What Roles Humans Play in HRI Research2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889496(478-492)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2022
    • (2020)“I just shared your responses”Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33751884:GROUP(1-18)Online publication date: 4-Jan-2020
    • (2020)Social Robots to Test Flexibility of Human Social CognitionInternational Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-020-00674-5Online publication date: 10-Jul-2020
    • (2019)The interrelationship between concepts about agency and students’ use of teachable-agent learning technologyCognitive Research: Principles and Implications10.1186/s41235-019-0163-64:1Online publication date: 18-Apr-2019
    • (2017)The influence of visual feedback and gender dynamics on performance, perception and communication strategies in CSCWInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.09.00397(162-181)Online publication date: Jan-2017
    • (2016)If asimo thinks, does roomba feel?Journal of Human-Robot Interaction10.5898/JHRI.5.3.Jaeger5:3(3-25)Online publication date: 20-Dec-2016
    • (2016)Do and Say as I SayHuman-Computer Interaction10.1080/07370024.2014.93418031:1(59-95)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2016
    • (2014)Mixed human/entity games and the anomalous effects of misattributing strategic agencyAdaptive Behavior10.1177/105971231453709022:4(266-276)Online publication date: 25-Jul-2014
    • (2013)Cognitive dissonance as a measure of reactions to human-robot interactionJournal of Human-Robot Interaction10.5898/JHRI.2.3.Levin2:3(3-17)Online publication date: 5-Sep-2013
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media