CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 135Social Robot Interaction and HRIAI in Service InteractionsRobotics and Automated Systems

Great Expectations? Relation of Previous Experiences With Social Robots in Real Life or in the Media and Expectancies Based on Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment

Open access
Horstmann, Aike C., Krämer, Nicole C.·2019·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00939PMC PMC6503083
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Social robots, which mostly look and behave like humans, are often perceived as somehow alive and treated similar to humans, despite the fact that they are non-living electronic devices. Based on considerations of the uncertainty reduction theory, the question arises what expectancies regarding social robots people have and what sources they use to achieve these expectancies. To receive an in-depth understanding of people’s expectancies regarding social robots and particularly how these expectancies are influenced by people’s experiences with real robots but also with fictional robots from media, thirteen semi-structured interviews and a quantitative online study (n = 433) were conducted. Results indicate that people’s experiences with robots in the media lead to high expectations regarding the skills of robots, which in turn increase people’s general expectancies regarding social robots being part of the society as well as their personal lives. Furthermore, knowledge of negatively perceived fictional robots increases negative expectancies of robots becoming a threat to humans, while technical affinity reduces general robot anxiety.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00939

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • A person's expectations of media agents (e.g., social robots) vary based on their experience.

    “and that a person's expectations of media agents (e.g., social robots) vary based on their experience (Horstmann & Krämer, 2019).”

    From Building a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm (2020) · cites this paper as Horstmann & Krämer, 2019

    The Discussion reports that experience with real robots, media coverage, and fictional robots influences people’s expectations of social robots. It does not establish that experience shapes expectations of media agents generally; the evidence is specific to robots. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Allport G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
  2. Andersen S. M. Klatzky R. L. (1987). Traits and social stereotypes: levels of categorization in person perception. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53 235– 246. 10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.235 · DOI
  3. Arras K. O. Cerqui D. (2005). Do We Want to Share Our Lives and Bodies With Robots? A 2000 People Survey. Technical Report Nr. 0605-001 Zürich: ETH-Zürich, 10.3929/ETHZ-A-010113633 · DOI
  4. Asch S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 41 258– 290. 10.1037/h0055756 20995551 · DOI
  5. Asimov I. (1950). I, Robot. New York, NY: Gnome Press.
  6. Bartels L. M. (1985). Expectations and preferences in presidential nominating campaigns. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 79 804– 815. 10.2307/1956845 · DOI
  7. Bartneck C. (2004). “ From fiction to science – a cultural reflection of social robots,” in Proceedings of the CHI 2004 Workshop on Shaping Human-Robot Interaction (New York, NY: ACM Press), 1– 4.
  8. Bartneck C. Forlizzi J. (2004). A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction,” in Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication - RO-MAN ’04 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 591– 594. 10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374827 · DOI
  9. Bartneck C. Suzuki T. Kanda T. Nomura T. (2006). The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc. 21 217– 230. 10.1007/s00146-006-0052-7 · DOI
  10. Binder J. Zagefka H. Brown R. Funke F. Kessler T. Mummendey A. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96 843– 856. 10.1037/a0013470 19309206 · DOI
  11. Bruckenberger U. Weiss A. Mirnig N. Strasser E. Stadler S. Tscheligi M. (2013). “The good, the bad, the weird: audience evaluation of a “real” robot in relation to science fiction and mass media,” in Advance Trends in Soft Computing: Proceedings of the World Conference on Soft Computing - WCSC ’13, ed. Jamshidi M. (Cham: Springer), 301– 310. 10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_30 · DOI
  12. Dautenhahn K. Woods S. Kaouri C. Walters M. L. Koay K. L. Werry I. (2005). “What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler?,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems - IROS ’05 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 1192– 1197. 10.1109/IROS.2005.1545189 · DOI · Paper page
  13. De Graaf M. M. A. Allouch S. B. (2013). Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Rob. Auton. Syst. 61 1476– 1486. 10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Dovidio J. F. Gaertner S. L. Kawakami K. (2003). Intergroup contact: the past, present, and the future. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 6 5– 21. 10.1177/1368430203006001009 · DOI
  15. Eyssel F. Hegel F. (2012). (S)he’s got the look: gender stereotyping of robots. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42 2213– 2230. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00937.x · DOI
  16. Eyssel F. Kuchenbrandt D. (2012). Social categorization of social robots: anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 51 724– 731. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02082.x 22103234 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Eyssel F. Kuchenbrandt D. Bobinger S. (2011). “Effects of anticipated human-robot interaction and predictability of robot behavior on perceptions of anthropomorphism,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI ’11, eds Billard A. Kahn P. Adams J. A. Trafton G. (New York, NY: ACM Press), 61– 68. 10.1145/1957656.1957673 · DOI
  18. Eyssel F. Kuchenbrandt D. Bobinger S. de Ruiter L. Hegel F. (2012). “’If you sound like me, you must be more human’: on the interplay of robot and user features on human-robot acceptance and anthropomorphism,” in Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI ’12, eds Yanco H. Steinfeld A. Evers V. Jenkins O. C. (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 125– 126. 10.1145/2157689.2157717 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Gaul S. Ziefle M. Arning K. Wilkowska W. Kasugai K. Röcker C. (2010). “Technology acceptance as an integrative component of product developments in the medical technology sector,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Ambient Assisted Living Conference - AAL ’10 (Berlin: VDE Verlag. CD-ROM), 26– 27.
  20. Goetz J. Kiesler S. Powers A. (2003). “Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation,” in Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication - RO-MAN ’03 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 55– 60. 10.1109/ROMAN.2003.1251796 · DOI
  21. Heerink M. Krose B. Evers V. Wielinga B. (2009). “Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit,” in Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication - RO-MAN ’09 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 528– 533. 10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326320 · DOI
  22. Hoffmann L. Krämer N. C. Lam-chi A. Kopp S. (2009). “Media equation revisited: do users show polite reactions towards an embodied agent?,” in Intelligent Virtual Agents: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents - IVA ’09 Vol. 5773 eds Ruttkay Z. Kipp M. Nijholt A. Vilhjálmsson H. H. (New York, NY: Springer), 159– 165. 10.1007/978-3-642-04380-2_19 · DOI
  23. Horstmann A. C. Bock N. Linhuber E. Szczuka J. M. Straßmann C. Krämer N. C. (2018). Do a robot’s social skills and its objection discourage interactants from switching the robot off? PLoS One 13: e0201581. 10.1371/journal.pone.0201581 30063750 PMC6067731 · DOI
  24. Hu L.-T. Bentler P. M. (1995). “Evaluating model fit,” in Structural Equation Modeling Concepts Issues and Applications, ed. Hoyle R. H. (London: Sage Publications, Inc), 76– 99.
  25. Hu L.-T. Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6 1– 55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Kahn P. H. Reichert A. L. Gary H. E. Kanda T. Ishiguro H. Shen S. (2011). “The new ontological category hypothesis in human-robot interaction,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI ’11, eds Billard A. Kahn P. Adams J. A. Trafton G. (New York, NY: ACM Press), 159– 160. 10.1145/1957656.1957710 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Kaplan F. (2004). Who is afraid of the humanoid? investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. Int. J. HR 01 465– 480. 10.1142/S0219843604000289 · DOI
  28. Kriz S. Ferro T. D. Damera P. Porter J. R. (2010). “Fictional robots as a data source in HRI research: exploring the link between science fiction and interactional expectations,” in Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication - RO-MAN ’10 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 458– 463. 10.1109/ROMAN.2010.5598620 · DOI
  29. Li D. Rau P. L. P. Li Y. (2010). A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2 175– 186. 10.1007/s12369-010-0056-9 · DOI
  30. McCauley L. (2007). “The frankenstein complex and Asimov’s three laws,” in Proceedings of the Papers from the 2007 AAAI Workshop, ed. Metzler T. (Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press), 9– 14.
  31. Mumm J. Mutlu B. (2011). “Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI ’11, eds Billard A. Kahn P. Adams J. A. Trafton G. (New York, NY: ACM Press), 331– 338. 10.1145/1957656.1957786 · DOI
  32. Murphy R. R. (2018). Astromech robots in Star Wars. Sci. Robot. 3: eaat1599 10.1126/scirobotics.aat1599 33141682 · DOI
  33. Nomura T. Sugimoto K. Syrdal D. S. Dautenhahn K. (2012). “Social acceptance of humanoid robots in Japan: a survey for development of the Frankenstein syndrome questionnaire,” in Proceedings of the 12th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 242– 247. 10.1109/HUMANOIDS.2012.6651527 · DOI
  34. Powers A. Kiesler S. (2005). “The advisor robot: tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI ’06, eds Goodrich M. A. Schultz A. C. Bruemmer D. J. (New York, NY: ACM Press), 218– 225. 10.1145/1121241.1121280 · DOI
  35. Powers A. Kramer A. D. I. Lim S. Kuo J. Lee S.-L. Kiesler S. (2005). “Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot,” in Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication - RO-MAN ’05 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 158– 163. 10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513773 · DOI
  36. Ray C. Mondada F. Siegwart R. (2008). “ What do people expect from robots?,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems - IROS ’08 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 3816– 3821. 10.1109/IROS.2008.4650714 · DOI
  37. Sandoval E. B. Mubin O. Obaid M. (2014). “Human robot interaction and fiction: a contradiction,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Social Robotics - ICSR ’14 Vol. 8755 ed. Beetz M. (Cham: Springer), 54– 63. 10.1007/978-3-319-11973-1_6 · DOI
  38. Severson R. L. Carlson S. M. (2010). Behaving as or behaving as if? Children’s conceptions of personified robots and the emergence of a new ontological category. Neural Netw. 23 1099– 1103. 10.1016/j.neunet.2010.08.014 20851571 · DOI
  39. Seyama J. Nagayama R. S. (2007). The uncanny valley: effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 16 337– 351. 10.1162/pres.16.4.337 · DOI
  40. Spence P. R. Westerman D. Edwards C. Edwards A. (2014). Welcoming our robot overlords: initial expectations about interaction with a robot. Commun. Res. Rep. 31 272– 280. 10.1080/08824096.2014.924337 · DOI
  41. Sundar S. S. Waddell T. F. Jung E. H. (2016). “The Hollywood robot syndrome: media effects on older adults’ attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions,” in Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interation - HRI ’16, eds Bartneck C. Nagai Y. Paiva A. Sabanovic S. (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 343– 350.
  42. Venkatesh V. Davis F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46 186– 204. 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Weiss A. Bernhaupt R. Tscheligi M. (2011a). “The USUS evaluation framework for user-centered HRI,” in New Frontiers in Human–Robot Interaction, eds Dautenhahn K. Saunders J. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 89– 110. 10.1075/ais.2.07wei · DOI
  44. Weiss A. Igelsböck J. Wurhofer D. Tscheligi M. (2011b). Looking forward to a “robotic society”? Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3 111– 123. 10.1007/s12369-010-0076-5 · DOI
  45. Wilson T. D. Lisle D. J. Kraft D. Wetzel C. G. (1989). Preferences as expectation-driven inferences: effects of affective expectations on affective experience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56 519– 530. 10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.519 2709307 · DOI
  46. Wullenkord R. Fraune M. R. Eyssel F. Sabanovic S. (2016). “Getting in touch: how imagined, actual, and physical contact affect evaluations of robots,” in Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication - RO-MAN ’16 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 980– 985. 10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745228 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Horstmann, A. C., & Krämer, N. C.
Affiliations
University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
Corresponding author
Horstmann, Aike C.
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2019-04-30
Volume
10
Pages
939-939
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00939
PMC
PMC6503083
OpenAlex
W2942520813
Cited by
135
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4
FWCI
15.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Universitätsbibliographie, Universität Duisburg-Essen (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DuEPublico (University of Duisburg-Essen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robotics and Automated Systems
Keywords
social robots, human-robot interaction, uncertainty reduction theory, anthropomorphism, threat perception

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