Cited by 78Social Robot Interaction and HRIInnovative Human-Technology InteractionAI in Service Interactions

Ffab—the form function attribution bias in human-robot interaction

Open access
Haring, Kerstin S., Watanabe, Katsumi, Velonaki, Mari, Tossell, Chad C., Finomore, Victor·2018·IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems

Abstract

People seem to miscalibrate their expectations and interactions with a robot. When it comes to robot design, the anthropomorphism level of the robot form (appearance) has become an increasingly important variable to consider. It is argued here that people base their expectations and perceptions of a robot on its form and attribute functions which do not necessarily mirror the true functions of the robot. The term form function attribution bias (FFAB) refers to the cognitive bias which occurs when people are prone to perceptual errors, leading to a biased interpretation of a robot's functionality. We argue that rather than objectively perceiving the robot's functionalities, people take a cognitive shortcut using the information available to them through visual perception. FFAB intends to outline the implications the design of a robot has on the human predisposition to interact socially with robots. In this theoretical review, we examined the results of several studies suggesting an FFAB. We outline future directions of experimental paradigms and robot design implications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tcds.2018.2851569

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haring, K. S., Watanabe, K., Velonaki, M., Tossell, C. C., & Finomore, V.
Affiliations
  • United States Air Force Academy (US)
  • Waseda University (JP)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems
Published
2018-12
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
843-851
ISSN
  • 2379-8920 (ISSN-L)
  • 2379-8939
OpenAlex
W2810522772
Cited by
78
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Air Force Research Laboratory
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research
  • U.S. Department of Education
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
human-robot interaction, anthropomorphism, robot appearance, cognitive biases, visual perception, social interaction with robots, robot design

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