Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-nlwjb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T04:37:47.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cues trigger depiction schemas for robots, as they do for human identities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2023

Eliott K. Doyle Open the ORCID record for Eliott K. Doyle [Opens in a new window]  and
Sara D. Hodges
Eliott K. Doyle
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1227, USA edoyle3@uoregon.edu sdhodges@uoregon.edu; https://psychology.uoregon.edu/profile/sdhodges
Sara D. Hodges
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1227, USA edoyle3@uoregon.edu sdhodges@uoregon.edu; https://psychology.uoregon.edu/profile/sdhodges
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Clark and Fischer's three levels of depiction of social robots can be conceptualized as cognitive schemas. When interacting with social robots, humans shift between schemas similarly to how they shift between identity category schemas when interacting with other humans. Perception of mind, context cues, and individual differences underlie perceptions of which level of depiction is most situationally relevant.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e27
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Chan, L., Doyle, K., McElfresh, D., Conitzer, V., Dickerson, J. P., Schaich Borg, J., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2020). Artificial intelligence: Measuring influence of AI “assessments” on moral decision-making. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, New York, NY, United States (pp. 214–220).10.1145/3375627.3375870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 177–190.10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, B. R., & Zawieska, K. (2012). Suspension of disbelief in social robotics. In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Wuhan, China (pp. 484–489). IEEE.Google Scholar
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, S., & Young, A. F. (2011). Becoming a vampire without being bitten: The narrative collective-assimilation hypothesis. Psychological Science, 22(8), 990–994.10.1177/0956797611415541CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619–619.10.1126/science.1134475CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, K., Knobe, J., Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1207–1220.10.1037/a0025883CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2012). Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition, 125(1), 125–130.10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammond, M. D., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Investigating the cognitive structure of stereotypes: Generic beliefs about groups predict social judgments better than statistical beliefs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(5), 607–614.10.1037/xge0000297CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodges, S. D., & Kezer, M. (2021). It is hard to read minds without words: Cues to use to achieve empathic accuracy. Journal of Intelligence, 9(2), 27.10.3390/jintelligence9020027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2012). Anthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless?. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, K. L., Hodges, S. D., Laurent, S. M., Srivastava, S., & Biancarosa, G. (2012). Reading between the minds: The use of stereotypes in empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 23(9), 1040–1046.10.1177/0956797612439719CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macrae, C. N., & Cloutier, J. (2009). A matter of design: Priming context and person perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 1012–1015.10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooijman, M., & Stern, C. (2016). When perspective taking creates a motivational threat: The case of conservatism, same-sex sexual behavior, and anti-gay attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 738–754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muckler, V. C. (2017). Exploring suspension of disbelief during simulation-based learning. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 13(1), 3–9.10.1016/j.ecns.2016.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, M. W., & Hodges, S. D. (2009). Making it up and making do: Simulation, imagination and empathic accuracy. In Markman, K., Klein, W. & Suhr, J. (Eds.), The handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 281–294). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Oyserman, D.. (2015). Identity-based motivation. In Scott, R. & Kosslyn, S. (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social sciences (pp. 1–11). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0171Google Scholar
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80–83.10.1111/1467-9280.00111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M., Hodges, S. D., & Kohányi, A. (2003). The illusion of independent agency: Do adult fiction writers experience their characters as having minds of their own?. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 22(4), 361–380.10.2190/FTG3-Q9T0-7U26-5Q5XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2014). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed