Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-6mz5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T21:29:57.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Binding paradox in artificial social realities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2023

Kai Vogeley Open the ORCID record for Kai Vogeley [Opens in a new window]
Kai Vogeley*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, 59037 Cologne, Germany kai.vogeley@uk-koeln.de https://psychiatrie-psychotherapie.uk-koeln.de/forschung/ag-soziale-kognition/ Cognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), 52428 Jülich, Germany k.vogeley@fz-juelich.de https://www.fz-juelich.de/de/inm/inm-3/forschung/soziale-kognition
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relation between communication partners is crucial for the success of their interaction. This is also true for artificial social agents. However, the more we engage in artificial relationships, the more we are forced to regulate and control them. I refer to this as binding paradox. This deserves attention during technological developments and requires professional supervision during ongoing interactions.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e48
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

Bente, G., Rüggenberg, S., Krämer, N. C., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Avatar-mediated networking: Increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernieri, F. J., Gillis, J. S., Davis, J. M., & Grahe, J. E. (1996). Dyad rapport and the accuracy of its judgment across situations: A lens model analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 110–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Carey, J. W. (2009). Communication as culture (revised edn.). Routledge.Google Scholar
Coleridge, S. T. (1907). Biographia literaria [original 1817]. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1982). Bemerkungen zur Übertragungsliebe [original 1914] Studienausgabe Bd. I (pp. 217–230). Fischer.Google Scholar
Kasap, Z., & Magnenat-Thalmann, N. (2007). Intelligent virtual humans with autonomy and personality: State-of-the-art. Intelligent Decision Technologies, 1, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lem, S. (2014). Summa technologiae [original 1964]. University of Minnesota Press (section 6).Google Scholar
Lemley, M. A., & Volokh, E. (2018). Law, virtual reality, and augmented reality. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 166, 1051–1138.Google Scholar
Madary, M., & Metzinger, T. K. (2016). Real virtuality: A code of ethical conduct. Recommendations for good scientific practice and the consumers of VR-technology. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marloth, M., Chandler, J., & Vogeley, K. (2020). Psychiatric interventions in virtual reality: Why we need an ethical framework. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 29(4), 574–584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mead, G. H. (1963). Mind, self, and society [original 1934]. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pan, X., & Hamilton, A. F. (2018) Why and how to use virtual reality to study human social interaction: The challenges of exploring a new research landscape. British Journal of Psychology, 109, 395–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfeiffer, U., Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Kuzmanovic, B., Georgescu, A., Bente, G., & Vogeley, K. (2014). Why we interact: On the functional role of the Striatum in the subjective experience of social interaction. NeuroImage, 101C, 124–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramirez, E. J., & LaBarge, S. (2018). Real moral problems in the use of virtual reality. Ethics Information Technology, 20, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swartout, W., Gratch, J., Hill, R., Hovy, E., Marsella, S., Rickel, J., & Traum, D. (2006). Toward virtual humans. AI Magazine, 27, 96–108.Google Scholar
Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychological Inquiry, 1(4), 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, D. H. V., Jording, M., Esser, C., Weiss, P. H., & Vogeley, K. (2021). Temporal binding is enhanced in social contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 1545–1555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogeley, K., & Bente, G. (2010) “Artificial humans”: Psychology and neuroscience perspectives on embodiment and nonverbal communication. Neural Networks, 23, 1077–1090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. Norton.Google Scholar