CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11

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

Social bonding between humans, animals, and robots: Dogs outperform AIBOs, their robotic replicas, as social companions

Klumpe, Stella, Mitchell, Kelsey C., Cox, Emma, Katz, Jeffrey S., Lazarowski, Lucia, Deshpande, Gopikrishna, Gratch, Jonathan, de Visser, Ewart J., Ayaz, Hasan, Li, Xingnan, Franke, Adrian A., Krueger, Frank·2025·PLOS One
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0324312PMC PMC12132934
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the evolving landscape of technology, robots have emerged as social companions, prompting an investigation into social bonding between humans and robots. While human-animal interactions are well-studied, human-robot interactions (HRI) remain comparatively underexplored. Ethorobotics, a field of social robotic engineering based on ecology and ethology, suggests designing companion robots modeled on animal companions, which are simpler to emulate than humans. However, it is unclear whether these robots can match the social companionship provided by their original models. This study examined social bonding between humans and AIBOs, dog-inspired companion robots, compared to real dogs. Nineteen female participants engaged in 12 affiliative interactions with dogs and AIBOs across two counter-balanced, one-month bonding phases. Social bonding was assessed through urinary oxytocin (OXT) level change over an interaction, self-reported attachment using an adapted version of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale, and social companionship evaluations administering the Robot-Dog Questionnaire. To examine OXT level changes and self-reported attachment by comparing the two social companions, we conducted mixed-effects model analyses and planned follow-up comparisons. Frequency comparison, binary logistic regression, and thematic analysis were performed to analyze social companionship evaluations. Results revealed significant differences between dogs and AIBOs in fostering social bonds. OXT level change increased during interactions with dogs but decreased with AIBOs. Participants reported stronger attachment to dogs and rated them as better social companions. These findings highlight the current limitations of AIBOs in fostering social bonding immediately compared to dogs. Our study contributes to the growing HRI research by demonstrating an existing gap between AIBOs and dogs as social companions. It highlights the need for further investigation to understand the complexities of social bonding with companion robots, which is essential to implement successful applications for social robots in diverse domains such as the elderly and health care, education, and entertainment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0324312

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. C Lieberwirth, 2014, Social bonding: regulation by neuropeptides, Front Neurosci, 8, 171, 10.3389/fnins.2014.00171 · DOI
  2. JM Beer, 2017, Affective human-robot interaction., 359, 10.1016/B978-0-12-801851-4.00015-X · DOI
  3. EC Collins, 2019, Drawing parallels in human-other interactions: a trans-disciplinary approach to developing human-robot interaction methodologies, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 374, 20180433, 10.1098/rstb.2018.0433 · DOI
  4. WS Helton, 2009, Canine Ergonomics: The Science of Working Dogs, 10.1201/9781420079920 · DOI
  5. Á Miklósi, 2017, Ethorobotics: A New Approach to Human-Robot Relationship, Front Psychol, 8, 958, 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00958 · DOI
  6. C Breazeal, 2002, Recognition of affective communicative intent in robot-directed speech, Auton Robots, 12, 83, 10.1023/A:1013215010749 · DOI
  7. C Breazeal, 2008, Social robots that interact with people., 1349, 10.1007/978-3-540-30301-5_59 · DOI
  8. DC Herath, 2013, Adopt-a-robot: A story of attachment (Or the lack thereof), 135
  9. N Koyama, 2017, Emotional or Social? How to Enhance Human-Robot Social Bonding., 203, 10.1145/3125739.3125742 · DOI
  10. K Youssef, 2016, Exploring the social bonding that evolves between a human and a minimally designed accompanying robot, Inf Media Technol, 11, 250
  11. E de Visser, 2020, Towards a theory of longitudinal trust calibration in human–robot teams, Int J Soc Robot, 12, 459, 10.1007/s12369-019-00596-x · DOI · Paper page
  12. AM Barchi-Ferreira, 2021, Associations between oxytocin and empathy in humans: A systematic literature review, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 129, 105268, 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105268 · DOI
  13. OV Burenkova, 2023, Endogenous oxytocin and human social interactions: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Psychol Bull, 149, 549, 10.1037/bul0000402 · DOI
  14. N Rigney, 2022, Oxytocin, Vasopressin, and Social Behavior: From Neural Circuits to Clinical Opportunities, Endocrinology, 163, 10.1210/endocr/bqac111 · DOI · Paper page
  15. SB Algoe, 2017, Oxytocin and Social Bonds: The Role of Oxytocin in Perceptions of Romantic Partners’ Bonding Behavior, Psychol Sci, 28, 1763, 10.1177/0956797617716922 · DOI
  16. EJ de Visser, 2017, A Little Anthropomorphism Goes a Long Way, Hum Factors, 59, 116, 10.1177/0018720816687205 · DOI
  17. M Olff, 2013, The role of oxytocin in social bonding, stress regulation and mental health: an update on the moderating effects of context and interindividual differences, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38, 1883, 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.06.019 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Johnson EA, Portillo A, Bennett NE, Gray PB. Exploring women's oxytocin responses to interactions with their pet cats. PeerJ. 2021 Nov 12;9:e12393. · DOI
  19. M Nagasawa, 2015, Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds, Science, 348, 333, 10.1126/science.1261022 · DOI · Paper page
  20. L Powell, 2019, The physiological function of oxytocin in humans and its acute response to human-dog interactions: a review of the literature, J Vet Behav, 30, 25, 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.10.008 · DOI · Paper page
  21. T Romero, 2014, Oxytocin promotes social bonding in dogs, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 111, 9085, 10.1073/pnas.1322868111 · DOI
  22. S Imamura, 2023, Higher oxytocin concentrations occur in subjects who build affiliative relationships with companion robots, iScience, 26, 108562, 10.1016/j.isci.2023.108562 · DOI
  23. M de Graaf, 2017, Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes, Interact Stud, 17, 461, 10.1075/is.17.3.08deg · DOI
  24. MAR Udell, 2008, A review of domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) human-like behaviors: or why behavior analysts should stop worrying and love their dogs, J Exp Anal Behav, 89, 247, 10.1901/jeab.2008.89-247 · DOI
  25. B Hare, 2002, The domestication of social cognition in dogs, Science, 298, 1634, 10.1126/science.1072702 · DOI
  26. M Gácsi, 2001, Attachment behavior of adult dogs (Canis familiaris) living at rescue centers: forming new bonds, J Comp Psychol, 115, 423, 10.1037/0735-7036.115.4.423 · DOI
  27. SD Gosling, 2003, A dog’s got personality: a cross-species comparative approach to personality judgments in dogs and humans, J Pers Soc Psychol, 85, 1161, 10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1161 · DOI
  28. D Mota-Rojas, 2021, Current Advances in Assessment of Dog’s Emotions, Facial Expressions, and Their Use for Clinical Recognition of Pain, Animals (Basel), 11, 3334, 10.3390/ani11113334 · DOI
  29. E Payne, 2015, Current perspectives on attachment and bonding in the dog-human dyad, Psychol Res Behav Manag, 8, 71, 10.2147/PRBM.S74972 · DOI · Paper page
  30. K Soproni, 2002, Dogs’ (Canis familiaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures, J Comp Psychol, 116, 27, 10.1037/0735-7036.116.1.27 · DOI
  31. P Valsecchi, 2010, Development of the attachment bond in guide dogs, Appl Anim Behav Sci, 123, 43, 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.12.012 · DOI
  32. F Krueger, 2021, Human–dog relationships as a working framework for exploring human–robot attachment: a multidisciplinary review, Anim Cogn, 24, 371, 10.1007/s10071-021-01472-w · DOI
  33. Schellin H, Oberley T, Patterson K, Kim B, Haring KS, Tossell CC, et al. Man’s New Best Friend? Strengthening Human-Robot Dog Bonding by Enhancing the Doglikeness of Sony’s Aibo. In: 2020 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS). IEEE. 2020. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/sieds49339.2020.9106587 · DOI
  34. E de Visser, 2022, Designing man’s new best friend: enhancing human-robot dog interaction through dog-like framing and appearance, Sensors, 22, 1287, 10.3390/s22031287 · DOI
  35. P Korondi, 2015, Etho-robotics: What kind of behaviour can we learn from the animals?, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48, 244, 10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.12.041 · DOI
  36. E Phillips, 2012, Human-animal teams as an analog for future human-robot teams, Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet, 56, 1553, 10.1177/1071181312561309 · DOI
  37. E Knox, 2018, AIBO Robot Mortuary Rites in the Japanese Cultural Context., 2020, 10.1109/IROS.2018.8594066 · DOI
  38. V Konok, 2018, Should we love robots? – The most liked qualities of companion dogs and how they can be implemented in social robots, Comput Hum Behav, 80, 132, 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.002 · DOI · Paper page
  39. S Stange, 2022, Self-Explaining Social Robots: An Explainable Behavior Generation Architecture for Human-Robot Interaction, Front Artif Intell, 5, 866920, 10.3389/frai.2022.866920 · DOI
  40. B Friedman, 2003, Hardware companions?: what online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human-robotic relationship, 273
  41. RR McCrae, 1999, PT. A Five-Factor theory of personality, 139
  42. C Esterwood, 2021, A meta-analysis of human personality and robot acceptance in human-robot interaction, 1
  43. S Forgas-Coll, 2024, Does the personality of consumers influence the assessment of the experience of interaction with social robots?, Int J Soc Robotics, 16, 1167, 10.1007/s12369-022-00935-5 · DOI
  44. C Jasso del Toro, 2019, Affiliative behaviors., 1, 10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1040-1 · DOI
  45. LR Goldberg, 1992, The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure, Psychological Assessment, 4, 26, 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 · DOI · Paper page
  46. TP Johnson, 1992, Psychometric evaluation of the Lexington attachment to pets scale (laps), Anthrozoös, 5, 160, 10.2752/089279392787011395 · DOI
  47. G Fowler, 2018, Women outnumber men in psychology graduate programs, Monitor on Psychology, 49
  48. E Kislev, 2023, The robot-gender divide: How and why men and women differ in their attitudes toward social robots, Soc Sci Comput Rev, 41, 2230, 10.1177/08944393231155674 · DOI
  49. M de Graaf, 2017, The influence of prior expectations of a robot’s lifelikeness on users’ intentions to treat a zoomorphic robot as a companion, Int J Soc Robotics, 9, 17, 10.1007/s12369-016-0340-4 · DOI
  50. C Bartneck, 2006, The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots, AI & Soc, 21, 217, 10.1007/s00146-006-0052-7 · DOI
  51. KS Haring, 2014, Cultural Differences in Perception and Attitude towards Robots, International Journal of Affective Engineering, 13, 149, 10.5057/ijae.13.149 · DOI
  52. O Korn, 2021, Understanding cultural preferences for social robots: a study in German and Arab communities, J Hum-Robot Interact, 10, 1, 10.1145/3439717 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 11

Metadata

Authors
Klumpe, S., Mitchell, K. C., Cox, E., Katz, J. S., Lazarowski, L., Deshpande, G., Gratch, J., de Visser, E. J., Ayaz, H., Li, X., Franke, A. A., & Krueger, F.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS One
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2025-06-03
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
e0324312
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0324312
PMC
PMC12132934
Cited by
11
References
6
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
Air Force Office of Research (FA9550-18-1-0455)

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