Oronzo Parlangeli
ABSTRACT
A study was conducted, with 240 participants, to analyze whether gender role stereotypes used in interactions with humans are also called into play in interactions with humanoid robots,. In the analysis, conducted by means of an online questionnaire, the adequacy to perform 8 roles (4 stereotypically masculine and 4 feminine) by 8 humanoid robots (4 judged as more clearly feminine and 4 masculine) was assessed.
Results showed that gender role stereotypes are activated for both genders, but men most strongly activate those pertaining to male roles. These stereotypes are also adopted in reference to humanoid robots, though robots are generally considered less suitable for performing female roles. Furthermore, an increased degree of similarity of robots to humans has a positive effect in assessing the appropriateness to perform female roles only for female robots. The same does not happen with male robots.
These results suggest that male and female robots are not categorized in the same way. Robots are essentially perceived as male entities, while female robots are a sort of modification of male exemplars, a particularly relevant hypothesis for gender-sensitive design of humanoid robots.
- David Bakan. 1966. The Duality of Human Existence. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Emily T. Amanatullah and Michael W. Morris 2010. Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women's fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 2 (Feb. 2010), 256-267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017094Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Shyam Sundar and Jinyoung Kim. 2019. Machine Heuristic: When We Trust Computers More than Humans with Our Personal Information. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Paper 538, 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300768Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tatsuya Nomura and Satoru Takagi. 2011. Exploring effects of educational backgrounds and gender in human–robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on user science and engineering (i-USEr 2011), November 29–December 1, 2011. Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 24–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/iUSEr.2011.6150530Google ScholarCross Ref
- Friederike Eyssel and Franck Hegel. 2012. (S)he's got the look: gender stereotyping of robots. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42, 9 (Sept. 2012), 2213–2230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00937.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Soobin Seo. 2022. When female (male) robot is talking to me: Effect of service robots’ gender and anthropomorphism on customer satisfaction, Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 102, Article 103166 (April 2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103166Google ScholarCross Ref
- Naznin Tabassum and Bhabani S. Nayak. 2021. Gender stereotypes and their impact on women's career progressions from a managerial perspective. IIM Kozhikode Soc. Manag. Rev. 10, 2 (Feb. 2021), 192-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2277975220975513Google ScholarCross Ref
- John M. Barth, Stephanie L. Masters, and Jeffrey G. Parker. 2022. Gender stereotypes and belonging across high school girls’ social groups: beyond the STEM classroom. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 25 (Jan. 2022), 275-292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09683-2Google ScholarCross Ref
- Susana C. Santos and Xaver Neumeyer. 2022. Culture and gender in entrepreneurial teams: the effect on team processes and outcomes. Small Bus. Econ. 58 (Feb. 2022), 1035–1050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00432-xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Janet S. Hyde. 2005. The gender similarities hypothesis. Am. Psychol. 60, 6 (Sept. 2005), 581–592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581Google ScholarCross Ref
- David M. Buss and David P. Schmitt. 1993. Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol. Rev. 100, 2, 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wendy Wood and Alice H. Eagly. 2012. Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46 (Jun. 2012), 55–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul T. Costa, Antonio Terracciano, and Robert R. McCrae. 2001. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 2 (Aug. 2001), 322–331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eleanor E. Maccoby and Carol N. Jacklin. 1974. The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
- Nicole M. Else-Quest, Janet Shibley Hyde and Marcia C. Linn. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 136, 1, 103–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018053Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thomas Breda and Clotilde Napp. 2019. Girls’ Comparative Advantage in Reading Can Largely Explain the Gender Gap in Math-Related Fields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 116, 31 (Jul. 2019), 15435–15440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905779116Google ScholarCross Ref
- Larry V. Hedges and Amy Nowell. 1995. Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science. 269, 5220 (Jul. 1995), 41–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7604277Google ScholarCross Ref
- Victoria J. Rideout, Ulla G. Foehr, and Donald F. Roberts. 2010. Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. Kaiser Fam. Found, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
- Nicki R. Crick and Jennifer K. Grotpeter. 1995. Relational Aggression, Gender, and Social-Psychological Adjustment. Child Dev. 66, 3 (Jun. 1995), 710–722. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1131945Google ScholarCross Ref
- Margherita Bracci, Stefano Guidi, Enrica Marchigiani, Maurizio Masini, Paola Palmitesta, and Oronzo Parlangeli. 2021. Perception of faces and elaboration of gender and victim/aggressor stereotypes: The influence of Internet use and of the perceiver's personality. Front. Psychol. 12 (Jun. 2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.561480Google ScholarCross Ref
- Janet S. Hyde. 2014. Gender similarities and differences. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65 (Jan. 2014), 373–398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pedro Bordalo, Katherine Coffman, Nicola Gennaioli, and Andrei Shleifer. 2016. Stereotypes. Q. J. Econ. 131, 4 (Nov. 2016), 1753–1794. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw029Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cogn. Psychol. 3, 3 (Jul. 1972), 430–454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tal Eyal and Nicholas Epley. 2017. Exaggerating accessible differences: When gender stereotypes overestimate actual group differences. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43, 9 (Jun. 2017), 1323–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217713190Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alice H. Eagly, Christa Nater, David I. Miller, Michèle Kaufmann, and Sabine Sczesny. 2019. Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. Am. Psychol. 75, 3, 301–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elizabeth L. Haines, Kay Deaux, Nicole Lofaro. 2016. The Times They Are a-Changing … or Are They Not? A Comparison of Gender Stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychol. Women Q., 40, 3, 353-363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316634081Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nazli Bhatia and Sudeep Bhatia. 2021. Changes in gender stereotypes over time: A computational analysis. Psychol. Women Q. 45, 1 (Dec. 2020), 106-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320977178Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tessa E.S. Charlesworth and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2021. Patterns of implicit and explicit stereotypes III: Long-term change in gender stereotypes. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 13, 1 (Jan. 2021), 14-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620988425Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thuy H. Truong and Kim A. Duong. 2022. Fostering Sustainable Development by Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in Career Choice. In: Nguyen, A.T., Hens, L. (eds) Global Changes and Sustainable Development in Asian Emerging Market Economies Vol. 1. Springer, Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81435-9_42Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maura J. Mills, Satoris S. Culbertson, Ann H. Huffman, and Angela R. Connell. 2012. Assessing gender biases: Development and initial validation of the gender role stereotypes scale, Gend. Manag. 27, 8 (Nov. 2012), 520-540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411211279715Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brian R. Duffy. 2003. Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Rob. Auton. Syst. 42 (Mar. 2003), 177-190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3Google ScholarCross Ref
- Luisa Damiano and Paul Dumouchel. 2018. Anthropomorphism in Human-Robot Co-evolution. Front. Psychol. 9 (Mar. 2018), Article 468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00468Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jakub Złotowski, Diane Proudfoot, Kumar Yogeeswaran, and Christoph Bartneck. 2015. Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human-robot interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7 (Nov. 2014), 347–360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R. Tauber. 1994. Computers are social actors. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '94). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260288Google ScholarDigital Library
- Clifford Nass, and Youngme Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues. 56 (Dec. 2002), 81–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benedict Tay, Younbo Jung and Taezoon Park. 2014. When stereotypes meet robots: the double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in human–robot interaction. Comput. Human Behav. 38 (Sept. 2014), 75–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.014Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oronzo Parlangeli, Maria C. Caratozzolo, and Stefano Guidi. 2014. Multitasking and mentalizing machines: how the workload can have influence on the system comprehension. In: Harris, D. (eds) Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, 11th International Conference, EPCE, Held as Part of HCI International,. Heraklion, Crete, Greece (2014), 50–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07515-0_6Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daniel J. Rea, Yan Wang, and James E. Young. 2015. Check your stereotypes at the door: An analysis of gender typecasts in social human-robot interaction. In Tapus, A., André, E., Martin, JC., Ferland, F., Ammi, M. (eds) Social Robotics. ICSR 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9388. Springer, Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_55Google ScholarDigital Library
- Giulia Perugia, Stefano Guidi, Margherita Bicchi, and Oronzo Parlangeli. 2022. The shape of our bias: Perceived age and gender in the humanoid robots of the ABOT database. In Proceedings of the 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI22), Sapporo, Hokkaido, JP. IEEE Press, 110-119.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elizabeth Phillips, Xuan Zhao, Daniel Ullman, and Bertram F. Malle. 2018. What is human-like? decomposing robots' human-like appearance using the anthropomorphic robot (ABOT) database. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '18). ACM, New York, NY, 105–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171268Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eileen Roesler, Lara Naendrup-Poell, Dietrich Manzey, and Linda Onnasch. 2022. Why context matters: The influence of application domain on preferred degree of anthropomorphism and gender attribution in Human–Robot Interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. (Jan. 2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00860-zGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Steven G. Luke. 2017. Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behav. Res. Meth. 49, 4 (Aug. 2017), 1494-1502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-yGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Nikolaj Sergeevič Trubetzkoy. 1969. Principles of Phonology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
- Aimi Shazwani Ghazali, Jaap Ham, Emilia Barakova, and Panos Markopoulos. 2019. Assessing the effect of persuasive robots interactive social cues on users' psychological reactance, liking, trusting beliefs and compliance: Advanced Robotics: Vol 33, No 7–8. Advanced Robotics 33 (2019), 325–337. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01691864.2019.1589570Google Scholar
- Ryan B. Jackson and T. Williams. 2019. Language-Capable Robots may Inadvertently Weaken Human Moral Norms. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 401–410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stefano Guidi, Enrica Marchigiani, Sergio Roncato and Oronzo Parlangeli. 2021. Human beings and robots: are there any differences in the attribution of punishments for the same crimes?, Behav Inform Technol, 40, 5, 445-453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1905879Google ScholarCross Ref
- Katie Winkle, Gaspar I. Melsión, Donald McMillan, and Iolanda Leite. 2021. Boosting Robot Credibility and Challenging Gender Norms in Responding to Abusive Behaviour: A Case for Feminist Robots. In Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’21). ACM, New York, NY, 29-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3434074.3446910Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fabio Fossa and Irene Sucameli. 2022. Gender Bias and Conversational Agents: an ethical perspective on Social Robotics. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 28, Article 23 (Apr. 2022), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00376-3Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- She's better at this, he's better at that. Gender role stereotypes in humanoid robots
Recommendations
The Influence of Gender-Ethnic Intersectionality on Gender Stereotypes about IT Skills and Knowledge
One line of investigation in attempting to better understand the gender imbalance in the information technology (IT) field is to examine gender stereotypes about the skills and knowledge in the IT profession. A survey of 4046 university students in the ...
Gender stereotypes prevail in ICT: a research review
SIGMIS CPR '09: Proceedings of the special interest group on management information system's 47th annual conference on Computer personnel researchThis paper surveys the research literature on stereotyping of gender and ICT and how it affects girls' participation in ICT education and work. Gender stereotypes can influence girls' choices over time, reducing their confidence and interest in ICT and ...
Battling gender stereotypes: A user study of a code-learning game, “Code Combat,” with middle school children
Abstract.Gender has been consistently controlled as a variable in usability and playability tests. However, there is no consensus on whether and how gender differences should influence the design of digital environments. According to some ...
Highlights- Assessing how gender differences are reproduced in a code-learning game is an unexplored category for player experience.
Comments