Humanoid Robots – Artificial. Human-like. Credible? Empirical Comparisons of Source Credibility Attributions Between Humans, Humanoid Robots, and Non-human-like Devices
Tóm tắt
Source credibility is known as an important prerequisite to ensure effective communication (Pornpitakpan, 2004). Nowadays not only humans but also technological devices such as humanoid robots can communicate with people and can likewise be rated credible or not as reported by Fogg and Tseng (1999). While research related to the machine heuristic suggests that machines are rated more credible than humans (Sundar, 2008), an opposite effect in favor of humans’ information is supposed to occur when algorithmically produced information is wrong (Dietvorst, Simmons, and Massey, 2015). However, humanoid robots may be attributed more in line with humans because of their anthropomorphically embodied exterior compared to non-human-like technological devices. To examine these differences in credibility attributions a 3 (source-type) x 2 (information’s correctness) online experiment was conducted in which 338 participants were asked to either rate a human’s, humanoid robot’s, or non-human-like device’s credibility based on either correct or false communicated information. This between-subjects approach revealed that humans were rated more credible than social robots and smart speakers in terms of trustworthiness and goodwill. Additionally, results show that people’s attributions of theory of mind abilities were lower for robots and smart speakers on the one side and higher for humans on the other side and in part influence the attribution of credibility next to people’s reliance on technology, attributed anthropomorphism, and morality. Furthermore, no main or moderation effect of the information’s correctness was found. In sum, these insights offer hints for a human superiority effect and present relevant insights into the process of attributing credibility to humanoid robots.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Baraka K, Alves-Oliveira P, Ribeiro T (2019) An extended framework for characterizing social robots. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.09873. Accessed 29 July 2021
Pornpitakpan C (2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. J Appl Soc Psychol 34(2):243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ (2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. J Pragmat 59(B):210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
Cho E, Sundar SS, Abdullah S, Motalebi N (2020) Will deleting history make alexa more trustworthy? Effects of privacy and content customization on user experience of smart speakers. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’20) pp 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376551
Edwards A, Edwards C, Spence PR, Harris C, Gambino A (2016) Robots in the classroom: differences in students’ perceptions of credibility and learning between “teacher as robot’’ and “robot as teacher’’. Comput Hum Behav 65:627–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.005
Sundar SS (2008) The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ (eds) Digital media, youth, and credibility. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 73–100
Dietvorst BJ, Simmons JP, Massey C (2015) Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J Exp Psychol Gen 144(1):114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033
Fink J (2012) Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interaction. In: Ge SS, Khatib O, Cabibihan JJ, Simmons R, Williams MA (eds) Social Robotics. ICSR 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7621. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_20
Seiler R, Kucza G (2017) Source credibility model, source attractiveness model and match-up-hypothesis: An integrated model. J Int Sci Publ Econ Bus. https://doi.org/10.21256/zhaw-4720
Hwang S (2013) The effect of Twitter use on politicians’ credibility and attitudes toward politicians. J Publ Relat Res 25(3):246–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2013.788445
Brodsky SL, Griffin MP, Cramer RJ (2010) The witness credibility scale: an outcome measure for expert witness research. Behav Sci Law 28(6):892–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.917
Kohring M (2001) Vertrauen in Medien—Vertrauen in Technologie. https://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/8694. Accessed 29. July 2021. https://doi.org/10.18419/opus-8677
McCroskey JC, Teven JJ (1999) Goodwill: a reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Commun Monogr 66(1):90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
Fogg BJ, Tseng H (1999) Social facilitation with social robots? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303001
Reeves B, Nass CI (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Złotowski J, Sumioka H, Eyssel F, Nishio S, Bartneck C, Ishiguro H (2018) Model of dual anthropomorphism: the relationship between the media equation effect and implicit anthropomorphism. Int J Soc Robot 10:701–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0476-5
Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
Hoffmann L, Krämer NC, Lam-chi A, Kopp S (2009) Media equation revisited Do users show polite reactions towards an embodied agent. In: Ruttkay Z, Kipp M, Nijholt A, Vilhjálmsson HH (eds) Intelligent Virtual Agents IVA 2009 Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Riether N, Hegel F, Wrede B, Horstmann G (2012) Social facilitation with social robots? In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157697
Strathmann C, Szczuka J, Krämer NC (2020) She talks to me as if she were alive: Assessing the social reactions and perceptions of children toward voice assistants and their appraisal of the appropriateness of these reactions. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA’20), 52. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383652.3423906
Lemaignan S, Fink J, Dillenbourg P, Braboszcz C (2014) The cognitive correlates of anthropomorphism. EPFL Infoscience. https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/196441. Accessed 29 July 2021
Phillips E, Zhao X, Ullman D, Malle BF (2018) What is human-like? Decomposing robots’ human-like appearance using the anthropomorphic robot (abot) database. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp 105-113
Caudwell C, Lacey C (2020) What do home robots want? The ambivalent power of cuteness in robotic relationships. Converg 26(4):956–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856519837792
Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
Manzi F, Massaro D, Di Lernia D, Maggioni MA, Riva G, Marchetti A (2021) Robots are not all the same: young adults’ expectations, attitudes, and mental attribution to two humanoid social robots. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 24(5):307–314. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0162
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 2004) pp 591-594. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374827
Andrist S, Spannan E, Mutlu B (2013) Rhetorical robots: making robots more effective speakers using linguistic cues of expertise. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp 341-348. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483608
Spence PR, Edwards C, Edwards A, Lin X (2019) Testing the machine heuristic: Robots and suspicion in news broadcasts. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp 568-569. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673108
Chidambaram V, Chiang Y-H, Mutlu B (2012) Designing persuasive robots: How robots might persuade people using vocal and nonverbal cues. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp 293-300. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157798
Logg JM, Minson JA, Moore DA (2019) Algorithm appreciation: people prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organ Behav and Hum Decis Process 151:90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
Prahl A, Van Swol L (2017) Understanding algorithm aversion: When is advice from automation discounted? J Forecast 36(6):691–702. https://doi.org/10.1002/for.2464
Benninghoff B, Kulms P, Hoffmann L, Krämer NC (2013) Theory of mind in human-robot-communication: Appreciated or not? Kognitive Systeme 1. https://doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/31357
Sturgeon S, Palmer A, Blankenburg J, Feil-Seifer D (2019) Perception of social intelligence in robots performing false-belief tasks. In: Proceedings of the 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956467
Banks J (2019) A perceived moral agency scale: development and validation of a metric for humans and social machines. Comput Hum Behav 90:363–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.028
Goldman AI (2012) Theory of mind. In: Margolis E, Samuels R, Stich SP (eds) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of cognitive science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp 402–424
Krach S, Hegel F, Wrede B, Sagerer G, Binkofski F, Kircher T (2008) Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI. PLoS ONE 3(7):e2597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002597
Manzi F, Peretti G, Di Dio C, Cangelosi A, Itakura S, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Masssaro D, Marchetti A (2020) A robot is not worth another: exploring children’s mental state attribution to different humanoid robots. Front Psychol 11:2011. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02011
Rosenthal-von der Pütten AM, Schulte FP, Eimler SC, Sobieraj S, Hoffmann L, Maderwald S, Brand M, Krämer NC (2014) Investigations on empathy towards humans and robots using fMRI. Comput Hum Behav 33:201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.004
Waddell TF (2018) A robot wrote this? How perceived machine authorship affects news credibility. Digit J 6(2):236–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1384319
Sundar SS, Kim J (2019) Designing persuasive robots: How robots might persuade people using vocal and nonverbal cues. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 538. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300768
Horstmann AC, Krämer NC (2019) Great expectations? Relation of previous experiences with social robots in real life or in the media and expectancies based on qualitative and quantitative assessment. Front Psychol 10:939. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00939
Deley T, Dubois E (2020) Assessing trust versus reliance for technology platforms by systematic literature review. Soc Med Soc 6(2):1–8
Jackson RB, Williams T (2019) On perceived social and moral agency in natural language capable robots. In: Proceedings of the 2019 HRI Workshop on the Dark Side of Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 401-410
Marathe SS, Sundar SS, Bijvank MN, van Vugt H, Veldhuis J (2007) Who are these power users anyway? Building a psychological profile. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco
Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived Intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robotics 1:71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3
Paek HJ, Hove T, Kim M, Jeong HJ, Dillard JP (2012) When distant others matter more: perceived effectiveness for self and other in the child abuse PSA context. Media Psychol 15(2):148–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2011.653002
Fogg BJ (2002) Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco