Seeing minds in others - Can agents with robotic appearance have human-like preferences?

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Martini, Molly C ^a   Gonzalez, Christian A ^a   Wiese, Eva ^a  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; HUMAN VERSUS ANIMAL COMPARISON; MODEL; PERCEPTION; PHYSICAL APPEARANCE; ROBOTICS; STATISTICAL MODEL; ADULT; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BEHAVIOR; BODY IMAGE; EMOTION; FEMALE; HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY; THEORY OF MIND;

ADULT; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BODY IMAGE; EMOTIONS; FEMALE; HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS; HUMANS; INTENTION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; ROBOTICS; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; THEORY OF MIND;

EID: 84954338804     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146310     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Frith CD, Frith U. The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron. 2006; 50(4): 531-534. PMID: 16701204
2. Baron-Cohen S. Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford Books; 1995.
3. Waytz A, Gray K, Epley N, Wegner DM. Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010; 14(8): 383-388. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006 PMID: 20579932
4. Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev. 2007; 114(4): 864. PMID: 17907867
5. Dennett DC. The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1987.
6. Wiese E, Wykowska A, Zwickel J, Müller HJ. I see what you mean: how attentional selection is shaped by ascribing intentions to others. PloS One. 2012; 7(9): e45391. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045391 PMID: 23049794
7. Heider F, Simmel M. An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol.1944: 243-259.102307/1416950.
8. Waytz A, Cacioppo J, Epley N. Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010; 5(3): 219-232. doi: 10.1177/1745691610369336 PMID: 24839457
9. Rosset E. It's no accident: our bias for intentional explanations. Cognition 2008; 108: 771-780. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.001 PMID: 18692779
10. Kay AC, Gaucher D, Napier JL, Callan MJ, Laurin K. God and the government: testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008; 95(1): 18. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18 PMID: 18605849
11. Ames DL, Jenkins AC, Banaji MR, Mitchell JP. Taking another person's perspective increases self-referential neural processing. Psychol Sci. 2008; 19(7): 642-644. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02135.x PMID: 18727776
12. Davis MH, Conklin L, Smith A, Luce C. Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: a merging of self and other. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996; 70(4): 713. PMID: 8636894
13. Epley N, Waytz A, Akalis S, Cacioppo JT. When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Soc Cogn. 2008; 26(2): 143-155.
14. Powers KE, Worsham AL, Freeman JB, Wheatley T, Heatherton TF. Social connection modulates perceptions of animacy. Psychol Sci. 2014; 25(10): 1943-1948. doi: 10.1177/0956797614547706 PMID: 25193944
15. Morewedge CK. Negativity bias in attribution of external agency. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2009; 138(4): 535. doi: 10.1037/a0016796 PMID: 19883135
16. Abell F, Happe F, Frith U. Do triangles play tricks? Attribution of mental states to animated shapes in normal and abnormal development. Cogn Dev 2000; 15(1): 1-16.
17. Castelli F, Happé F, Frith U, Frith C. Movement andmind: a functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentionalmovement patterns. Neuroimage, 2000; 12(3): 314-325. PMID: 10944414
18. Klein AM, Zwickel J, Prinz W, Frith U. Animated triangles: An eye tracking investigation. Q J Exp Psychol. 2009; 62(6): 1189-1197.
19. Ristic J, Kingstone A. Taking control of reflexive social attention. Cognition. 2005; 94(3): B55-B65. PMID: 15617667
20. Kiesler S, Powers A, Fussell SR, Torrey C. Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent. Soc Cogn. 2008; 26(2): 169-181.
21. Looser CE, Wheatley T. The tipping point of animacy how, when, and where we perceive life in a face. Psychol Sci. 2010; 21(12): 1854-1862. doi: 10.1177/0956797610388044 PMID: 21097720
22. Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K. A survey of socially interactive robots. Rob Auton Syst. 2003; 42: 143-166.
23. Lundqvist D, Flykt A, Öhman A. The Karolinska directed emotional faces (KDEF) [CD-ROM]. Stockholm: Department of Clinical Neuroscience Psychology Karolinska Institutet; 1998.
24. Hackel LM, Looser CE, Van Bavel JJ. Group membership alters the threshold for mind perception: The role of social identity collective identification and intergroup threat. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2014; 52: 15-23.
25. Arnhold E. Easynls: Easy nonlinear model R package version 40.2014. Available: http://CRANRprojectorg/package = easynls.
26. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge; 2003.
27. Breazeal C, Scassellati B. Infant-like social interactions between a robot and a human caregiver. Adapt Behav. 2000; 8(1): 49-74.
28. Scassellati B. A binocular foveated active vision system. Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Lab; 1998 Report No.: 1628.
29. Wykowska A, Wiese E, Prosser A, Müller HJ. Beliefs about the minds of others influence how we process sensory information. PloS One. 2014; 9(4): e94339. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094339 PMID: 24714419