Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-76mfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-15T05:33:14.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meta-cognition about social robots could be difficult, making self-reports about some cognitive processes less useful

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2023

Matthew Rueben Open the ORCID record for Matthew Rueben [Opens in a new window]
Matthew Rueben*
Affiliation:
Shiley School of Engineering, University of Portland, Portland, OR 97203, USA rueben@up.edu https://matthewrueben.github.io/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are reasons to suspect that meta-cognition about construing social robots as depictions would be more difficult – or absent – than Clark and Fischer discuss. Self-reports about the cognitive processes involved might therefore tend to be incomplete or inaccurate, limiting their usefulness as measures.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e44
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

Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2008). Metacognition. Sage.Google Scholar
Remmers, P. (2020). The artificial nature of social robots: A phenomenological interpretation of two conflicting tendencies in human-robot interaction. In Culturally sustainable social robotics (pp. 78–85). IOS Press.Google Scholar
Rueben, M., Klow, J., Duer, M., Zimmerman, E., Piacentini, J., Browning, M., … Smart, W. D. (2021). Mental models of a mobile shoe rack: Exploratory findings from a long-term in-the-wild study. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 10(2), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thellman, S. (2021). Social robots as intentional agents. Doctoral dissertation, Linköping University Electronic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thellman, S., de Graaf, M., & Ziemke, T. (2021). Mental state attribution to robots: A systematic review of conceptions, methods, and findings. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 11(4), 1–51.Google Scholar
Złotowski, J., Proudfoot, D., Yogeeswaran, K., & Bartneck, C. (2015). Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human-robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(3), 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Złotowski, J., Sumioka, H., Eyssel, F., Nishio, S., Bartneck, C., & Ishiguro, H. (2018). Model of dual anthropomorphism: The relationship between the media equation effect and implicit anthropomorphism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(5), 701–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar