CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sex robots and personality: It is more about sex than robots

Dubé, S., Santaguida, M., Zhu, C.Y., Di Tomasso, S., Hu, R., Cormier, G., Johnson, A.P., Vachon, D.·2022·Computers in Human Behavior
DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107403
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107403

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Appel, 2019, Otakuism and the appeal of sex robots, Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00569 · DOI
  2. Arafat, 2021, Sex during pandemic: Panic buying of sex toys during COVID-19 lockdown, Journal of Psychosexual Health, 3, 175, 10.1177/26318318211013347 · DOI
  3. Archer, 2019, The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences, Biological Reviews, 94, 1381, 10.1111/brv.12507 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bainbridge, 2022, Evaluating the Big Five as an organizing framework for commonly used psychological trait scales, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122, 10.1037/pspp0000395 · DOI
  5. Bowden-Green, 2020, How is extraversion related to social media use? A literature review, Personality and Individual Differences, 164, 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110040 · DOI
  6. Bowden-Green, 2021, Understanding neuroticism and social media: A systematic review, Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110344 · DOI
  7. Brandon, 2021, Emotional, sexual and behavioral correlates of attitudes toward sex robots: Results of an online survey, Journal of Future Robot Life, 2, 67, 10.3233/FRL-210003 · DOI
  8. Brandon, 2021, Curiosity and other attitudes towards sex robots: Results of an online survey, Journal of Future Robot Life, 10.3233/FRL-210003 · DOI
  9. Bröhl, 2019, Human–Robot Collaboration Acceptance Model: Development and comparison for Germany, Japan, China and the USA, International Journal of Social Robotics, 11, 709, 10.1007/s12369-019-00593-0 · DOI
  10. Christensen, 2019, Reopening openness to experience: A network analysis of four openness to experience inventories, Journal of Personality Assessment, 101, 574, 10.1080/00223891.2018.1467428 · DOI
  11. Clark, 1995, Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development, Psychological Assessment, 7, 309, 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Cooper, 2010, A confirmatory factor analysis of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale, Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 688, 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.004 · DOI
  13. Costa, 2008, The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R), Vol. 2, 179
  14. Cross, 2013, Sex differences in sensation-seeking: A meta-analysis, Scientific Reports, 3, 10.1038/srep02486 · DOI
  15. Crowe, 2018, Uncovering the structure of agreeableness from self-report measures, Journal of Personality, 86, 771, 10.1111/jopy.12358 · DOI
  16. Donnellan, 2006, The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big five factors of personality, Psychological Assessment, 18, 192, 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Döring, 2019, Experiences with diverse sex toys among German heterosexual adults: Findings from a national online survey, The Journal of Sex Research, 57, 885, 10.1080/00224499.2019.1578329 · DOI
  18. Döring, 2019, Love and sex with robots: A content analysis of media representations, International Journal of Social Robotics, 11, 665, 10.1007/s12369-019-00517-y · DOI
  19. Dubé, 2020, Foundations of erobotics, International Journal of Social Robotics, 1
  20. Dubé, 2022, Erobots as research tools: Overcoming the ethical and methodological challenges of sexology, Journal of Future Robot Life, 10.3233/FRL-210017 · DOI
  21. Dubé, 2022, Perceived stigma and erotic technology: From sex toys to erobots, Psychology & Sexuality, 1
  22. Farvid, 2017, ‘No girl wants to be called a slut!’: Women, heterosexual casual sex and the sexual double standard, Journal of Gender Studies, 26, 544, 10.1080/09589236.2016.1150818 · DOI
  23. Fetterolf, 2015, The costs and benefits of perceived sexual agency for men and women, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 961, 10.1007/s10508-014-0408-x · DOI
  24. Fisher, 1988, Erotophobia-erotophilia as a dimension of personality, The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 123, 10.1080/00224498809551448 · DOI
  25. Gaither, 2003, The sexual sensation seeking scale: Reliability and validity within a heterosexual college student sample, Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 157, 10.1207/S15327752JPA8102_07 · DOI
  26. Galaitsi, 2019, Sex robots—a harbinger for emerging AI risk, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 2, 10.3389/frai.2019.00027 · DOI
  27. Gesselman, 2022, Engagement with emerging forms of sextech: Demographic correlates from a national sample of adults in the United States, The Journal of Sex Research
  28. Gilbert, 1984, The sexual opinion survey: Structure and use, The Journal of Sex Research, 20, 293, 10.1080/00224498409551227 · DOI
  29. González-González, 2021, Human–robot interaction and sexbots: A systematic literature review, Sensors, 21, 10.3390/s21010216 · DOI
  30. Hoyle, 2002, Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking, Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 401, 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00032-0 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Ivanski, 2017, Exploring definitions of sex positivity through thematic analysis, The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 26, 216, 10.3138/cjhs.2017-0017 · DOI
  32. Kalichman, 1994, Sexual sensation seeking: Scale development and predicting AIDS-risk behavior among homosexually active men, Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 385, 10.1207/s15327752jpa6203_1 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Kaufman, 2020, Reprogramming consent: Implications of sexual relationships with artificially intelligent partners, Psychology & Sexuality, 11, 372, 10.1080/19419899.2020.1769160 · DOI
  34. Koverola, 2020, Moral psychology of sex robots: An experimental study – how pathogen disgust is associated with interhuman sex but not interandroid sex, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 11, 233
  35. Kubes, 2019, New materialist perspectives on sex robots: A feminist dystopia/utopia?, Social Sciences, 8, 10.3390/socsci8080224 · DOI
  36. Martínez-Córcoles, 2017, Assessing technophobia and technophilia: Development and validation of a questionnaire, Technology in Society, 51, 183, 10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.09.007 · DOI
  37. McCrae, 1985, Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality, Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587, 10.1016/0191-8869(85)90008-X · DOI
  38. Mitchell, 2019, Why do men report more opposite-sex sexual partners than women? Analysis of the gender discrepancy in a British national probability survey, The Journal of Sex Research, 56, 1, 10.1080/00224499.2018.1481193 · DOI
  39. Moran, 2019, Programming power and the power of programming: An analysis of racialised and gendered sex robots, 39, 10.1007/978-3-476-04967-4_3 · DOI
  40. Nordmo, 2020, Friends, lovers or nothing: Men and women differ in their perceptions of sex robots and platonic love robots, Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00355 · DOI
  41. Oleksy, 2021, Do women perceive sex robots as threatening? The effect of political views and presenting the robot as a female-vs male-friendly product, Computers in Human Behavior, 117, 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106664 · DOI
  42. Osiceanu, 2015, Psychological implications of modern technologies: “Technofobia” versus “technophilia”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1137, 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.229 · DOI
  43. Petersen, 2011, Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors: A review of meta-analytic results and large datasets, The Journal of Sex Research, 48, 149, 10.1080/00224499.2011.551851 · DOI
  44. Rad, 2018, Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 11401, 10.1073/pnas.1721165115 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Skakoon-Sparling, 2021, Sexual risk taking intentions under the influence of relationship motivation, partner familiarity, and sexual arousal, The Journal of Sex Research, 58, 659, 10.1080/00224499.2020.1743227 · DOI
  46. Stephenson, 2007, The reliability and validity of the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS-8) with young adult Latino workers: Implications for tobacco and alcohol disparity research, Addiction, 102, 79, 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01958.x · DOI
  47. Strahler, 2019, Attentional bias towards and distractibility by sexual cues: A meta-analytic integration, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 105, 276, 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.07.015 · DOI
  48. Szczuka, 2017, Not only the lonely—how men explicitly and implicitly evaluate the attractiveness of sex robots in comparison to the attractiveness of women, and personal characteristics influencing this evaluation, Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1, 10.3390/mti1010003 · DOI
  49. Wilner, 2017, Objects of desire: The role of product design in revising contested cultural meanings, Journal of Marketing Management, 33, 244, 10.1080/0267257X.2016.1240099 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 25

Metadata

Authors
Dubé, S., Santaguida, M., Zhu, C. Y., Di Tomasso, S., Hu, R., Cormier, G., Johnson, A. P., & Vachon, D.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-11
Volume
136
Pages
107403
ISSN
0747-5632
DOI
10.1016/j.chb.2022.107403
Cited by
25
References
6
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review