1932

Abstract

In movies, robots are often extremely humanlike. Although these robots are not yet reality, robots are currently being used in healthcare, education, and business. Robots provide benefits such as relieving loneliness and enabling communication. Engineers are trying to build robots that look and behave like humans and thus need comprehensive knowledge not only of technology but also of human cognition, emotion, and behavior. This need is driving engineers to study human behavior toward other humans and toward robots, leading to greater understanding of how humans think, feel, and behave in these contexts, including our tendencies for mindless social behaviors, anthropomorphism, uncanny feelings toward robots, and the formation of emotional attachments. However, in considering the increased use of robots, many people have concerns about deception, privacy, job loss, safety, and the loss of human relationships. Human–robot interaction is a fascinating field and one in which psychologists have much to contribute, both to the development of robots and to the study of human behavior.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958
2017-01-03
2024-04-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/68/1/annurev-psych-010416-043958.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ainsworth MDS, Bell SM. 1970. Attachment, exploration, and separation: illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Dev 41:49–67 [Google Scholar]
  2. Avrunin E, Simmons R. 2014. Socially-appropriate approach paths using human data. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun., 23rd, Edinburgh, Scotl. May 25–29 1037–42 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartneck C, Rosalia C, Menges R, Deckers I. 2005. Robot abuse—a limitation of the media equation. Proc. Interact 2005 Workshop Abuse, Rome Sept. 12 54–57 http://www.agentabuse.org/Abuse_Workshop_WS5.pdf
  4. Basoeki F, Libera F, Menegatti E, Moro M. 2013. Robots in education: new trends and challenges from the Japanese market. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. 6:51–62 [Google Scholar]
  5. Basteris A, Nijenhuis SM, Stienen AHA, Buurke JH, Prange GB, Amirabdollahian F. 2014. Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: a framework for classification based on a systematic review. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 11:1–15 [Google Scholar]
  6. BBC News. 2015a. Moment owner told ‘Samsung TV is listening'. BBC News Feb. 9. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31297376
  7. BBC News. 2015b. What did she say? Talking doll Cayla is hacked. BBC News Jan. 30. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31059893
  8. Beck A, Hiolle A, Mazel A, Cañamero L. 2010. Interpretation of emotional body language displayed by robots. Proc. Int. Workshop Affect. Interact. Nat. Env., 3rd, Firenze, Italy Oct. 25–29 37–42 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  9. Bemelmans R, Gelderblom GJ, Jonker P, de Witte L. 2015. Effectiveness of robot Paro in intramural psychogeriatric care: a multicenter quasi-experimental study. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc 16946–50 [Google Scholar]
  10. Blanson HOA, Bierman BPB, Janssen J, Neerincx MA, Looije R. et al. 2013. Using a robot to personalise health education for children with diabetes type 1: a pilot study. Patient Educ. Couns. 92:174–81 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bloom DE, Chatterji S, Kowal P, Lloyd-Sherlock P, McKee M. et al. 2015. Macroeconomic implications of population ageing and selected policy responses. Lancet 385:9968649–57 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolton D. 2016. Scarlett Johansson lookalike robot built by Hong Kong man in his flat. Independent Apr. 4. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/scarlett-johansson-robot-hong-kong-ricky-ma-a6967971.html
  13. Boone RT, Buck R. 2003. Emotional expressivity and trustworthiness: the role of nonverbal behavior in the evolution of cooperation. J. Nonverb. Behav. 27:163–82 [Google Scholar]
  14. Broadbent E, Kumar V, Li X, Sollers J, Stafford RQ. et al. 2013. Robots with display screens: A robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PLOS ONE 8:8e72589 [Google Scholar]
  15. Broadbent E, Kuo I, Lee YI, Rabindran J, Kerse N. et al. 2010. Attitudes and reactions to a healthcare robot. Telemed. e-Health 16608–13 [Google Scholar]
  16. Broadbent E, Peri K, Kerse N, Jayawardena C, Kuo I. et al. 2014. Robots in older people's homes to improve medication adherence and quality of life: a randomized cross-over trial. Oct. 27–29 64–73 Cham, Switz.: Springer
  17. Broadbent E, Tamagawa R, Kerse NM, Knock BW, Patience AA, MacDonald BA. 2009. Retirement home staff and residents' preferences for healthcare robots. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun., 18th, Toyama, Jpn. Sep. 27–Oct. 2 645–50 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  18. Broadbent E, Tamagawa R, Patience A, Knock B, Kerse N. et al. 2012. Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australas. J. Ageing 31:115–20 [Google Scholar]
  19. Broholm M, Onsberg HI, Rosenberg J. 2016. Limited evidence for robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutan. Tech. 26:117–23 [Google Scholar]
  20. Brown R. 1995. Prejudice: Its Social Psychology Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  21. Brscić D, Kidokoro H, Suehiro T, Kanda T. 2015. Escaping from children's abuse of social robots. Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Hum.-Robot Interact., 10th, Portland, OR Mar. 2–5 59–66 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  22. Cabibihan JJ, Joshi D, Srinivasa YM, Chan MA, Muruganantham A. 2015. Illusory sense of human touch from a warm and soft artificial hand. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 23:517–27 [Google Scholar]
  23. Cherry CO, Chumbler NR, Richards K, Huff A, Wu D. et al. 2016. Expanding stroke telerehabilitation services to rural veterans: a qualitative study on patient experiences using the robotic stroke therapy delivery and monitoring system program. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. In press. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2015.1061613
  24. Chin E, Felt AP, Sekar V, Wagner D. 2012. Measuring user confidence in smartphone security and privacy. Proc. Symp. Usable Priv. Secur., 8th, Washington, DC Jul. 11–13 1–16 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  25. Coeckelbergh M, Pop C, Simut R, Peca A, Pintea S. et al. 2016. A survey of expectations about the role of robots in robot-assisted therapy for children with ASD: ethical acceptability, trust, sociability, appearance, and attachment. Sci. Eng. Ethics 22:47–65 [Google Scholar]
  26. Covey MK, Saladin S, Killen PJ. 1989. Self-monitoring, surveillance, and incentive effects on cheating. J. Soc. Psychol. 129:673–79 [Google Scholar]
  27. Darling K, Nandy P, Breazeal C. 2015. Empathic concern and the effect of stories in human-robot interaction. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun., 24th, Kobe, Jpn. Aug. 31–Sep. 4 770–775 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  28. Diehl JJ, Schmitt LM, Villano M, Crowell CR. 2012. The clinical use of robots for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders: a critical review. Res. Autism Spect. Dis. 6:249–62 [Google Scholar]
  29. DiSalvo CF, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S. 2002. All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. Proc. Des. Interact. Syst., 4th, London Jun. 25–28 321–26 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  30. Ekman P. 1989. Why lies fail and what behaviors betray a lie. Credibility Assessment JC Yuille 71–81 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  31. Ellison LM, Nguyen M, Fabrizio MD, Soh A, Permpongkosol S, Kavoussi LR. 2007. Postoperative robotic telerounding: a multicenter randomized assessment of patient outcomes and satisfaction. Arch. Surg. 142:1177–81 [Google Scholar]
  32. Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT. 2007. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114:864 [Google Scholar]
  33. euRobotics AISBL. 2013. Robotics 2020: strategic research agenda for robotics in Europe euRobotics Coord. Action Draft 0v42, 7th Framework Progr., Eur. Comm., Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/robotics-ppp-roadmap_en.pdf
  34. Eyssel F, Hegel F. 2012. (S)he's got the look: gender stereotyping of robots. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42:2213–30 [Google Scholar]
  35. Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D. 2012. Social categorization of social robots: anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 51:724–31 [Google Scholar]
  36. Eyssel F, Reich N. 2013. Loneliness makes the heart grow fonder (of robots): on the effects of loneliness on psychological anthropomorphism. Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Hum.-Robot Interact., 8th, Tokyo Mar. 3–6 121–22 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  37. Faragó T, Miklósi A, Korcsok B, Száraz J, Gácsi M. 2014. Social behaviours in dog-owner interactions can serve as a model for designing social robots. Interact. Stud. 15:143–72 [Google Scholar]
  38. Fels DI, Waalen JK, Zhai S, Weiss P. 2001. Telepresence under exceptional circumstances: enriching the connection to school for sick children. Proc. Interact 2001, Tokyo Jul. 9–13 617–24 Amsterdam: IOS Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Fernaeus Y, Håkansson M, Jacobsson M, Ljungblad S. 2010. How do you play with a robotic toy animal? A long-term study of Pleo. Proc. Int. Conf. Interact. Des. Child., 9th, Barcelona, Spain Jun. 9–12 39–48 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  40. Fernandez-Baena A, Boldú R, Albo-Canals J, Miralles D. 2015. Interaction between Vleo and Pleo, a virtual social character and a social robot. Proc. Int. Symp. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun., 24th, Kobe, Jpn. Aug. 31–Sep. 4 694–99 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  41. Fischer K. 2011. Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Hum.-Robot Interact., 6th, Lausanne, Switz. Mar. 8–11 53–60 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  42. Fogg BJ, Nass C. 1997. How users reciprocate to computers: an experiment that demonstrates behavior change. Proc. ACM Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., Atlanta, GA Mar. 22–27 331–32 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  43. Ford C. 2012. Robot & Frank, directed by J Schreier. New York: Samuel Goldwyn Films [Google Scholar]
  44. Friedman B, Kahn PH Jr., Hagman J. 2003. Hardware companions? What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human-robotic relationship. Proc. ACM Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Apr. 5–10 273–80 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  45. Fu F, Tarnita CE, Christakis NA, Wang L, Rand DG, Nowak MA. 2012. Evolution of in-group favoritism. Sci. Rep. 2:460–65 [Google Scholar]
  46. Gandsas A, Parekh M, Bleech MM, Tong DA. 2007. Robotic telepresence: profit analysis in reducing length of stay after laparoscopic gastric bypass. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 205:72–77 [Google Scholar]
  47. Gray HM, Gray K, Wegner DM. 2007. Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315:5812619 [Google Scholar]
  48. Gray K, Wegner DM. 2012. Feeling robots and human zombies: mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition 125:125–30 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  49. Gray K, Young L, Waytz A. 2012. Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychol. Inq. 23:101–24 [Google Scholar]
  50. Han J, Park I, Park M. 2015. Outreach education utilizing humanoid type agent robots. Proc. Int. Conf. Hum.-Agent Interact., 3rd, Daegu, Korea Oct. 21–24 221–22 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  51. Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JYC, De Visser EJ, Parasuraman R. 2011. A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum. Factors 53:517–27 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hanson D, Olney A, Prilliman S, Mathews E, Zielke M. et al. 2005. Upending the uncanny valley. Proc. Int. Conf. Assoc. Adv. Artif. Intell., 20th, Pittsburgh, PA Jul. 9–13 1728–29 Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press [Google Scholar]
  53. Hoenen M, Lübke KT, Pause BM. 2016. Non-anthropomorphic robots as social entities on a neurophysiological level. Comput. Hum. Behav. 57:182–86 [Google Scholar]
  54. Hoffman G, Forlizzi J, Ayal S, Steinfeld A, Antanitis J. et al. 2015. Robot presence and human honesty: experimental evidence. Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Hum.-Robot Interact., 10th, Portland, OR Mar. 2–5 181–88 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  55. Hoffmann M, Marques HG, Arieta AH, Sumioka H, Lungarella M, Pfeifer R. 2010. Body schema in robotics: a review. IEEE Trans. Auton. Ment. Dev. 2:304–24 [Google Scholar]
  56. Huddy L, Terkildsen N. 1993. Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 37:119–47 [Google Scholar]
  57. Hughes A, Burridge J, Freeman CT, Donnovan-Hall M, Chappell PH. et al. 2011. Stroke participants' perceptions of robotic and electrical stimulation therapy: a new approach. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 6:130–38 [Google Scholar]
  58. Hyun E, Park H, Jang S, Yeon H. 2010. The usability of a robot as an educational assistant in a kindergarten and young children's perceptions of their relationship with the robot. Korean J. Child Stud. 31:267–82 [Google Scholar]
  59. Intuit. Surg., Inc. 2016. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. 2015 annual report. Annu. Rep., Intuit. Surg., Inc., Sunnyvale, CA. http://www.annualreports.com/Company/intuitive-surgical-inc [Google Scholar]
  60. Ishiguro H, Nishio S. 2007. Building artificial humans to understand humans. J. Artif. Organs 10:133–42 [Google Scholar]
  61. Jøranson N, Pedersen I, Rokstad AM, Ihlebæk C. 2015. Effects on symptoms of agitation and depression in persons with dementia participating in robot-assisted activity: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc 16867–73 [Google Scholar]
  62. Kahn PH Jr., Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Freier NG, Severson RL. et al. 2012a. “Robovie, you'll have to go into the closet now”: children's social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev. Psychol. 48:303–14 [Google Scholar]
  63. Kahn PH Jr., Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Gill BT, Ruckert JH. et al. 2012b. Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes?. Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Hum.-Robot Interact., 7th, Boston, MA Mar. 5–8 33–40 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  64. Kaplan F. 2001. Artificial attachment: Will a robot ever pass Ainsworth's strange situation test?. Proc. IEEE-RAS Int. Conf. Humanoid Robot., Tokyo Sept. 29–30 125–32 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  65. Kidd CD, Breazeal C. 2008. Robots at home: understanding long-term human-robot interaction. Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst., Nice, Fr.3230–35 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  66. Kristoffersson A, Coradeschi S, Loutfi A. 2013. A review of mobile robotic telepresence. Adv. Hum. Comput. Int. 3:3 [Google Scholar]
  67. Kwak SS, Kim Y, Kim E, Shin C, Cho K. 2013. What makes people empathize with an emotional robot? The impact of agency and physical embodiment on human empathy for a robot. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun., 22nd, Gyeongju, Korea Aug. 29 180–85 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  68. Lammer L, Huber A, Weiss A, Vincze M. 2014. Mutual care: how older adults react when they should help their care robot. Proc. Int. Symp. Soc. Stud. Artif. Intell. Simul. Behav., 3rd, London Apr. 3–4. http://hobbit.acin.tuwien.ac.at/publications/AISB2014-HRIpaper.pdf
  69. Lee JJ, Knox B, Breazeal C. 2013. Modeling the dynamics of nonverbal behavior on interpersonal trust for human-robot interactions. Proc. Spring Symp. Assoc. Adv. Artif. Intell., Palo Alto, CA Mar. 25–27 46–47 Palo Alto, CA: AAAI [Google Scholar]
  70. Lee MK, Kiesler S, Forlizzi J. 2010. Receptionist or information kiosk: How do people talk with a robot?. Proc. ACM Conf. Comput. Support. Coop. Work, Savannah, GA Feb. 6–10 31–40 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  71. Levy D. 2007. Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships New York: Harper Collins
  72. Li J, Ju W, Reeves B. 2016. Touching a mechanical body: Tactile contact of a human-shaped robot is physiologically arousing. Proc. Int. Conf. Int. Commun. Assoc., Fukuoka, Jpn. June 9–13. In press [Google Scholar]
  73. Lin P, Abney K, Bekey G. 2011. Robot ethics: mapping the issues for a mechanized world. Artif. Intell. 175:942–49 [Google Scholar]
  74. Liu LS, Inkpen KM, Pratt W. 2015. I'm not like my friends: understanding how children with a chronic illness use technology to maintain normalcy. Proc. ACM Conf. Comput. Support. Coop. Work, Vancouver, Can. Mar. 14–18 1527–39 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  75. Looser CE, Wheatley T. 2010. The tipping point of animacy: how, when, and where we perceive life in a face. Psychol. Sci. 21:1854–62 [Google Scholar]
  76. MacDorman KF. 2006. Subjective ratings of robot video clips for human likeness, familiarity, and eeriness: an exploration of the uncanny valley. Proc. Int. Conf. Cogn. Sci., 5th, Vancouver, Can July 26–29 26–29 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  77. MacDorman KF, Chattopadhyay D. 2016. Reducing consistency in human realism increases the uncanny valley effect; increasing category uncertainty does not. Cognition 146:190–205 [Google Scholar]
  78. MacDorman KF, Ishiguro H. 2006. The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interact. Stud. 7:297–337 [Google Scholar]
  79. Malle BF, Scheutz M, Arnold T, Voiklis J, Cusimano C. 2015. Sacrifice one for the good of many? People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Hum.-Robot Interact., 10th, Portland, OR Mar. 2–5 117–24 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  80. Mann JA, MacDonald BA, Kuo I, Li X, Broadbent E. 2015. People respond better to robots than computer tablets delivering healthcare instructions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 43:112–17 [Google Scholar]
  81. McAndrew FT, Koehnke SS. 2016. On the nature of creepiness. New Ideas Psychol 43:10–15 [Google Scholar]
  82. Melson GF, Kahn PH Jr., Beck A, Friedman B. 2009. Robotic pets in human lives: implications for the human-animal bond and for human relationships with personified technologies. J. Soc. Issues 65:545–67 [Google Scholar]
  83. Milgram S. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psych. 67:371–78 [Google Scholar]
  84. Misra S, Cheng L, Genevie J, Yuan M. 2016. The iPhone effect: the quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environ. Behav. 48:275–98 [Google Scholar]
  85. Moon Y. 2000. Intimate exchanges: using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. J. Consum. Res. 26:323–39 [Google Scholar]
  86. Mori M. 1970. The uncanny valley. Energy 7:33–35 [Google Scholar]
  87. Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N. 2012. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19:98–100 [Google Scholar]
  88. Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S, Mahmud AA, Dong J. 2013. A review of the applicability of robots in education. J. Tech. Educ. Learn. 1:209–15 [Google Scholar]
  89. Mumm J, Mutlu B. 2011. Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Hum.-Robot Interact., 6th, Lausanne, Switz. Mar. 8–11 331–38 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  90. Nass C, Fogg BJ, Moon Y. 1996. Can computers be teammates. Int. J. Hum.-Comp. Stud. 45:669–78 [Google Scholar]
  91. Nass C, Moon Y. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56:81–103 [Google Scholar]
  92. Nass C, Moon Y, Carney P. 1999. Are respondents polite to computers? Social desirability and direct responses to computers. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29:1093–110 [Google Scholar]
  93. Nass C, Moon Y, Green N. 1997. Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27:864–76 [Google Scholar]
  94. Nass C, Reeves B. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Televisions, and New Media as Real People and Places Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  95. Ogawa K, Nishio S, Koda K, Balistreri G, Watanabe T, Ishiguro H. 2011. Exploring the natural reaction of young and aged person with telenoid in a real world. J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform. 15:592–97 [Google Scholar]
  96. Orejana JR, MacDonald BA, Ahn HS, Peri K, Broadbent E. 2015. Healthcare robots in homes of rural older adults. Social Robotics A Tapus, E Andre, J Martin, F Ferland, M Ammi 512–52 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  97. Pereira A, Leite I, Mascarenhas S, Martinho C, Paiva A. 2011. Using empathy to improve human-robot relationships. Human-Robot Personal Relationships MH Lamers, FJ Verbeek 130–38 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  98. Rajesh M. 2015. Inside Japan's first robot-staffed hotel. The Guardian Aug. 14. http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2015/aug/14/japan-henn-na-hotel-staffed-by-robots
  99. Rehm M, Krogsager A. 2013. Negative affect in human robot interaction—impoliteness in unexpected encounters with robots. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun., 22nd, Gyeongju, Korea Aug. 26–29 45–50 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  100. Robinson HM, Broadbent E, MacDonald B. 2016. Group sessions with Paro in a nursing home: structure, observations and interviews. Australas. J. Ageing 35:106–12 [Google Scholar]
  101. Robinson HM, MacDonald BA, Broadbent E. 2014. The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: a review. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6:575–91 [Google Scholar]
  102. Robinson HM, MacDonald BA, Broadbent E. 2015. Physiological effects of a companion robot on blood pressure of older people in residential care facility: a pilot study. Australas. J. Ageing 34:27–32 [Google Scholar]
  103. Robinson HM, MacDonald BA, Kerse N, Broadbent E. 2012. Suitability of healthcare robots for a dementia unit and suggested improvements. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc 1434–40 [Google Scholar]
  104. Robinson HM, MacDonald BA, Kerse N, Broadbent E. 2013. The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: a randomized controlled trial. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc 14661–67 [Google Scholar]
  105. Rosenthal-von der Pütten AM, Krämer NC. 2014. How design characteristics of robots determine evaluation and uncanny valley related responses. Comput. Hum. Behav. 36:422–39 [Google Scholar]
  106. Rosheim M. 2006. Leonardo's Lost Robots Berlin: Springer
  107. Ruhland K, Peters CE, Andrist S, Badler JB, Badler NI. et al. 2015. A review of eye gaze in virtual agents, social robotics and HCI: behaviour generation, user interaction and perception. Comput. Graph. Forum 34:299–26 [Google Scholar]
  108. Sabelli AM, Kanda T. 2015. Robovie as a mascot: a qualitative study for long-term presence of robots in a shopping mall. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 8:211–21 [Google Scholar]
  109. Salvini P, Ciaravella G, Yu W, Ferri G, Manzi A. et al. 2010. How safe are service robots in urban environments? Bullying a robot. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun., 19th, Pisa, Italy Sep. 13–15 1–7 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  110. Sandoval EB, Brandsetter J, Bartneck C. 2016. Reciprocity in human-robot interaction: a quantitative approach through the prisoner's dilemma and the ultimatum game. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 8:303–17 [Google Scholar]
  111. Satake S, Hayashi K, Nakatani K, Kanda T. 2015. Field trial of an information-providing robot in a shopping mall. Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst., Hamburg, Ger. Sep. 28–Oct. 2 1832–39 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  112. Saygin AP, Chaminade T, Ishiguro H, Driver J, Frith C. 2012. The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neur. 7:413–22 [Google Scholar]
  113. Scassellati B, Admoni H, Mataric M. 2012. Robots for use in autism research. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng 14275–94 [Google Scholar]
  114. Scheeff M, Pinto J, Rahardja K, Snibbe S, Tow R. 2002. Experiences with Sparky, a social robot. Socially Intelligent Agents K Dautenhahn, A Bond, L Canamero, B Edmonds 173–80 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  115. Seo SH, Geiskkovitch D, Nakane M, King C, Young JE. 2015. Poor thing! Would you feel sorry for a simulated robot? A comparison of empathy toward a physical and a simulated robot. Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Hum.-Robot Interact., 10th, Portland, OR Mar. 2–5 125–32 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  116. Sharkey A, Sharkey N. 2011. Children, the elderly, and interactive robots. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 18:32–38 [Google Scholar]
  117. Siegel M, Breazeal C, Norton MI. 2009. Persuasive robotics: the influence of robot gender on human behavior. Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst., St. Louis, MO Oct. 10–15 2563–68 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  118. Simut R, Vanderfaeillie J, Peca A, Perre G, Vanderborght B. 2016. Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders make a fruit salad with Probo, the social robot: an interaction study. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 46:113–26 [Google Scholar]
  119. Sorbello R, Chella A, C Calí, Giardina M, Nishio S, Ishiguro H. 2014. Telenoid android robot as an embodied perceptual social regulation medium engaging natural human-humanoid interaction. Robot. Auton. Syst. 62:1329–41 [Google Scholar]
  120. Sparrow R, Sparrow L. 2006. In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Mind. Mach. 16:141–61 [Google Scholar]
  121. Srinivasan V, Murphy RR. 2011. A survey of social gaze. Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Hum.-Robot Interact., 6th, Lausanne, Switz. Mar. 8–11 253–54 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  122. Suzuki Y, Galli L, Ikeda A, Itakura S, Kitazaki M. 2015. Measuring empathy for human and robot hand pain using electroencephalography. Sci. Rep. 5:15924 [Google Scholar]
  123. Swinnen E, Beckwée D, Meeusen R, Baeyens J, Kerckhofs E. 2014. Does robot-assisted gait rehabilitation improve balance in stroke patients? A systematic review. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 21:87–100 [Google Scholar]
  124. Takano E, Matsumoto Y, Nakamura Y, Ishiguro H, Sugamoto K. 2008. Psychological effects of an android bystander on human-human communication. Proc. IEEE-RAS Int. Conf. Humanoid Robot., 8th, Daejeon, Korea Dec. 1–3 635–39 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  125. Tamagawa R, Watson C, Kuo IH, MacDonald BA, Broadbent E. 2011. The effects of synthesized voice accents on user perceptions of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3:253–62 [Google Scholar]
  126. Tapus A, Tapus C, Matarić MJ. 2008. User–robot personality matching and assistive robot behavior adaptation for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. Intell. Serv. Robot. 1:169–83 [Google Scholar]
  127. Thicknesse P. 1784. The Speaking Figure and the Automaton Chess-Player, Exposed and Detected London: John Stockdale
  128. Turing AM. 1950. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 49:433–60 [Google Scholar]
  129. Turkle S. 2005. The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  130. Turkle S. 2010. In good company? On the threshold of robotic companions. Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological, Ethical and Design Issues Y Wilks 3–10 Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ. [Google Scholar]
  131. Turkle S. 2014. Objects of desire. What Should We Be Worried About? Real Scenarios that Keep Scientists Up at Night J Brockman 93–97 New York: Harper Perennial [Google Scholar]
  132. Turkle S, Taggart W, Kidd C, Dasté O. 2006. Relational artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship. Connect. Sci. 18:347–61 [Google Scholar]
  133. Vespa PM, Miller C, Hu X, Nenov V, Buxey F, Martin NA. 2007. Intensive care unit robotic telepresence facilitates rapid physician response to unstable patients and decreased cost in neurointensive care. Surg. Neurol. 67:331–37 [Google Scholar]
  134. Wainer J, Feil-Seifer DJ, Shell DA, Matarić MJ. 2006. The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun., 15th, Hatfield, UK Sept. 6–8 117–22 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
  135. Waytz A, Cacioppo J, Epley N. 2014. Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5:219–32 [Google Scholar]
  136. Waytz A, Morewedge CK, Epley N, Monteleone G, Gao J, Cacioppo JT. 2010. Making sense by making sentient: effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99:410–35 [Google Scholar]
  137. Weiss A, Wurhofer D, Tscheligi M. 2009. “I love this dog”—children's emotional attachment to the robotic dog AIBO. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1:243–48 [Google Scholar]
  138. Whitby B. 2008. Sometimes it's hard to be a robot: a call for action on the ethics of abusing artificial agents. Interact. Comput. 20:326–33 [Google Scholar]
  139. Yoshikawa M, Matsumoto Y, Sumitani M, Ishiguro H. 2011. Development of an android robot for psychological support in medical and welfare fields. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Biomim., Phuket, Thail. Dec. 7–11 2378–83 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error