Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T10:33:56.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social robots as depictions of social agents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2022

Herbert H. Clark Open the ORCID record for Herbert H. Clark [Opens in a new window]  and
Kerstin Fischer Open the ORCID record for Kerstin Fischer [Opens in a new window]
Herbert H. Clark
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2130, USA clark@stanford.edu; web.stanford.edu/~clark/
Kerstin Fischer
Affiliation:
Department of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, DK-6400 Sonderborg, Denmark kerstin@sdu.dk; www.sdu.dk/ansat/kerstin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social robots serve people as tutors, caretakers, receptionists, companions, and other social agents. People know that the robots are mechanical artifacts, yet they interact with them as if they were actual agents. How is this possible? The proposal here is that people construe social robots not as social agents per se, but as depictions of social agents. They interpret them much as they interpret ventriloquist dummies, hand puppets, virtual assistants, and other interactive depictions of people and animals. Depictions as a class consist of three physical scenes with part-by-part mappings between them: (a) a base scene (the raw physical artifact), (b) the depiction proper (the artifact construed as a depiction), and (c) the scene depicted (the scene people are to imagine). With social robots, evidence shows people form the same three scenes plus mappings: They perceive the raw machinery of a robot, construe it as a depiction of a character, and, using the depiction as a guide, engage in the pretense that they are interacting with the character depicted. With social robots, people also recognize three classes of agents – the characters depicted, the intended recipients of the depictions (those who view or interact with the robots), and the authorities responsible for the robots (the designers, makers, and owners). Construing social robots as depictions, we argue, accounts for many phenomena not covered by alternative models.

Keywords

anthropomorphismdepictionshuman–robot interactionroboticssocial agents
Type
Target Article
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e21
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Airenti, G. (2018). The development of anthropomorphism in interaction: Intersubjectivity, imagination, and theory of mind. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(2136), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnold, T. H., & Scheutz, M. (2017). Beyond Moral Dilemmas: Exploring the Ethical Landscape in HRI. Paper presented at the 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), Vienna, Austria.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baum, L. F. (1900). The wonderful Wizard of Oz. G. M. Hill.Google Scholar
Belanche, D., Casaló Luis, V., Flavián, C., & Schepers, J. (2020). Robots or frontline employees? Exploring customers’ attributions of responsibility and stability after service failure or success. Journal of Service Management, 31(2), 267–289. doi: 10.1108/JOSM-05-2019-0156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. (2010). How pleasure works: The new science of why we like what we like. Random House.Google Scholar
Borges, J. L. (1998). On exactitude in science. In Collected fictions (pp. 325–327). Viking.Google Scholar
Breazeal, C. L. (2002). Designing sociable robots. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bretherton, I. (Ed.) (1984). Symbolic play: The development of social understanding. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bretherton, I. (1989). Pretense: The form and function of make-believe play. Developmental Review, 9(4), 383–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, E. (2017). Interactions with robots: The truths we reveal about ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 627–652. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Čapek, K. (1921). R. U. R. Rossum's universal robots. Aventinum.Google Scholar
Carroll, L. (1894). Sylvie and Bruno concluded. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Chang, W.-L., & Šabanović, S. (2015). Studying Socially Assistive Robots in their Organizational Context: Studies with PARO in a Nursing Home. Paper presented at the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), Portland, Oregon, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2701973.2702722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatman, S. B. (1980). Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Chidambaram, V., Chiang, Y.-H., & Mutlu, B. (2012). Designing Persuasive Robots: How Robots might Persuade People using Vocal and Nonverbal Cues. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), Boston, Massachusetts, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choe, K. S., Keil, F. C., & Bloom, P. (2005). Children's understanding of the Ulysses conflict. Developmental Science, 8(5), 387–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, E. V. (1997). Conceptual perspective and lexical choice in acquisition. Cognition, 64(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, E. V. (2009). First language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2020). Perspective-taking and pretend-play: Precursors to figurative language use in young children. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 100–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1999). How Do Real People Communicate with Virtual Partners. Paper presented at the 1999 AAAI Fall Symposium, Psychological Models of Communication in Collaborative Systems, North Falmouth, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (2016). Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review, 123(3), 324–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H. H. (2019). Depicting in communication. In Hagoort, P. (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brains to behavior (pp. 235–247). MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Van Der Wege, M. A. (2015). Imagination in narratives. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., & Schiffrin, D. (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 406–421). John Wiley.Google Scholar
Coeckelbergh, M. (2011). You, robot: On the linguistic construction of artificial others. AI & Society, 26(1), 61–69. doi: 10.1007/s00146-010-0289-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1994). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Crowell, C. R., Deska, J. C., Villano, M., Zenk, J., & Roddy, J. T. Jr (2019). Anthropomorphism of robots: Study of appearance and agency. JMIR Human Factors, 6(2), e12629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLoache, J. S. (1991). Symbolic functioning in very young children: Understanding of pictures and models. Child Development, 62(4), 736–752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLoache, J. S., Pierroutsakos, S. L., Uttal, D. H., Rosengren, K. S., & Gottlieb, A. (1998). Grasping the nature of pictures. Psychological Science, 9(3), 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. (2016).Designing speech for a recipient: The roles of partner modeling, alignment, and feedback in so-called “simplified registers”. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. (2006). What computer talk is and isn't. Human–computer conversation as intercultural communication. AQ-Verlag.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2011). Interpersonal Variation in Understanding Robots as Social Actors. Paper presented at the 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), Lausanne, Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. (2021). Tracking anthropomorphizing behavior in human–robot interaction. Journal of Human–Robot Interaction, 11(1), Article 4. doi: 10.1145/3442677Google Scholar
Fischer, K., Baumann, T., Langedijk, R., Jelinek, M., Manoopong, P., Lakshadeep, N., … Palinko, O. (2021). Deliverable 1.2d: Update on user experiments. Report in the framework of the SMOOTH: Seamless huMan–robot interactiOn fOr THe support of elderly people project.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H., Flavell, E. R., Green, F. L., & Korfmacher, J. E. (1990). Do young children think of television images as pictures or real objects? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34(4), 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H. Jr, & Hagman, J. (2003). Hardware Companions? What Online AIBO Discussion Forums Reveal about the Human–Robotic Relationship. Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvey, C. (1990). Play. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glas, D. F., Minato, T., Ishi, C. T., Kawahara, T., & Ishiguro, H. (2016). Erica: The ERATO Intelligent Conversational Android. Paper presented at the 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), New York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, T. R., & Bloom, P. (2015). Characterizing characters: How children make sense of realistic acting. Cognitive Development, 34, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619. doi: 10.1126/science.1134475CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, R. L. (1968). Perceptual illusions and brain models. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 171(1024), 279–296.Google ScholarPubMed
Gregory, R. L. (1970). The intelligent eye. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. L. (2005). The Medawar Lecture 2001 knowledge for vision: Vision for knowledge. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1458), 1231–1251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, J. J., Fredrickson, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1994). The psychophysiology of crying. Psychophysiology, 31, 460–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotion elicitation using films. Cognition and Emotion, 9(1), 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochberg, J., & Brooks, V. (1962). Pictorial recognition as an unlearned ability: A study of one child's performance. The American Journal of Psychology, 75(4), 624–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H., Casillas, M., & Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communicative interaction. Frontiers Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahn, P. H. Jr, Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Freier, N. G., Severson, R. L., Gill, B. T., … Shen, S. (2012). “Robovie, you'll have to go into the closet now”: Children's social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 303–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korzybski, A. (1948). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics. International Non-Aristotelian Library.Google Scholar
Langedijk, R. & Fischer, K. (2023). Persuasive Robots in the Field. Paper presented at the Persuasive'23 Conference, Eindhoven, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lee, M. K., Kiesler, S., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). Receptionist or Information Kiosk: How Do People Talk with a Robot? Paper presented at the Annual ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Savannah, Georgia, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, D. E., Breazeal, C., Goodwin, M. S., Jeong, S., O'Connell, B., Smith-Freedman, D., … Weinstock, P. (2019). Social robots for hospitalized children. Pediatrics, 144(1), e20181511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maynard, P. (1994). Seeing double. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 52(2), 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, R., & Matarić, M. J. (2016). Perceptual models of human–robot proxemics. In Hsieh, M., Khatib, O., & Kumar, V. (Eds.), Experimental robotics. Springer tracts in advanced robotics (Vol. 109, pp. 261–276). Springer.Google Scholar
Melson, G. F., Kahn, P. H. Jr, Beck, A., & Friedman, B. (2006). Toward Understanding Children's and Adults’ Encounters with Social Robots. Paper presented at the AAAI Workshop on Human Implications of Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), Boston, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
Menne, I. M., & Schwab, F. (2018). Faces of emotion: Investigating emotional facial expressions towards a robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(2), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mieczkowski, H., Liu, S. X., Hancock, J., & Reeves, B. (2019). Helping Not Hurting: Applying the Stereotype Content Model and Bias Map to Social Robotics. Paper presented at the 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, Korea.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1993). Images and models, similes and metaphors. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 357–400). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammadi, G., & Vinciarelli, A. (2012). Automatic personality perception: Prediction of trait attribution based on prosodic features. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(3), 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. K. (2017). Is spoken language all-or-nothing? Implications for future speech-based human–machine interaction. In Jokinen, K., & Wilcock, G. (Eds.), Dialogues with social robots: Enablements, analyses, and evaluation. Lecture notes in electrical engineering (Vol. 427, pp. 281–291). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutlu, B., Shiwa, T., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2009). Footing in Human–Robot Conversations: How Robots might Shape Participant Roles using Gaze Cues. Paper presented at the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, La Jolla, California, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanay, B. (2018). Threefoldness. Philosophical Studies, 175(1), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Green, N. (1997). Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 864–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00275.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1098–1111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oatley, K. (2011). Such stuff as dreams: The psychology of fiction. John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oatley, K. (2016). Fiction: Simulation of social worlds. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(8), 618–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paiva, A., Leite, I., Boukricha, H., & Wachsmuth, I. (2017). Empathy in virtual agents and robots: A survey. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 7(3), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, E., Ullman, D., de Graaf, M. M., & Malle, B. F. (2017). What does a Robot Look Like? A Multi-site Examination of User Expectations about Robot Appearance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Austin, Texas, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Pitsch, K., Kuzuoka, H., Suzuki, Y., Sussenbach, L., Luff, P., & Heath, C. (2009). “The First Five Seconds”: Contingent Stepwise Entry into an Interaction as a Means to Secure Sustained Engagement in HRI. Paper presented at the 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Toyama, Japan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, B., Hancock, J., & Liu, S. X. (2020). Social robots are like real people: First impressions, attributes, and stereotyping of social robots. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 1(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A. M., Krämer, N. C., Hoffmann, L., Sobieraj, S., & Eimler, S. C. (2013). An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(1), 17–34. doi: 10.1007/s12369-012-0173-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rottenberg, J., Ray, R. D., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion elicitation using films. In Coan, J. A. & Allen, J. J. B. (Eds.), Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment (pp. 9–29). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruijten, P. A., Bouten, D. H., Rouschop, D. C., Ham, J., & Midden, C. J. (2014). Introducing a Rasch-type Anthropomorphism Scale. Paper presented at the 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), Bielefeld, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruijten, P. A., Haans, A., Ham, J., & Midden, C. J. (2019). Perceived human-likeness of social robots: Testing the Rasch model as a method for measuring anthropomorphism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(3), 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruijten, P. A. M. (2015). Responses to human-like artificial agents. Uitgeverij BOXPress.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, I., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seibt, J. (2017). Towards an ontology of simulated social interaction: Varieties of the “as if” for robots and humans. In Hakli, R., & Seibt, J. (Eds.), Sociality and normativity for robots (pp. 11–39). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seo, S. H., Geiskkovitch, D., Nakane, M., King, C., & Young, J. E. (2015). Poor Thing! Would You Feel Sorry for a Simulated Robot? A Comparison of Empathy toward a Physical and a Simulated Robot. Paper presented at the 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), Portland, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
Severson, R. L., & Woodard, S. R. (2018). Imagining others’ minds: The positive relation between children's role play and anthropomorphism. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skolnick, D., & Bloom, P. (2006). What does Batman think about SpongeBob? Children's understanding of the fantasy/fantasy distinction. Cognition, 101(1), B9–B18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suzuki, Y., Galli, L., Ikeda, A., Itakura, S., & Kitazaki, M. (2015). Measuring empathy for human and robot hand pain using electroencephalography. Scientific Reports, 5, 15924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turkle, S., Breazeal, C., Dasté, O., & Scassellati, B. (2006). Encounters with Kismet and Cog: Children respond to relational artifacts. In Messaris, P. & Humphreys, L. (Eds.), Digital media: Transformations in human communication (pp. 313–330). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. (2008). Understanding sentences in context: What brain waves can tell us. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 376–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2009). The neuropragmatics of “simple” utterance comprehension: An ERP review. In Sauerland, U., & Yatsushiro, K. (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 276–316). Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Walton, K. L. (1973). Pictures and make-believe. The Philosophical Review, 82(3), 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, K. L. (1978). Fearing fictions. The Journal of Philosophy, 75(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, K. L. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, K. L. (2008). Marvelous images: On values and the arts. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, K. L. (2015). In other shoes: Music, metaphor, empathy, existence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010a). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J.-H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010b). Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 410–435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisman, K., Dweck, C. S., & Markman, E. M. (2017). Rethinking people's conceptions of mental life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(43), 11374–11379. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704347114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, S., Mok, B., Sirkin, D., & Ju, W. (2015). Adventures of an Adolescent Trash Barrel. Paper presented at the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), Portland, Oregon, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (1999). Situation models: The mental leap into imagined worlds. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Embodiment and language comprehension: Reframing the discussion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 229–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed