Anthropomorphic Interactions with a Robot and Robot–like Agent

TLDR

Physical embodiment and presence increase salience, yet questions remain about how people resolve ambiguity when interacting with humanlike nonhuman agents. The study predicted that people would anthropomorphize an embodied humanoid robot more than a robot‑like agent, and that a collocated robot would elicit greater anthropomorphism than a remote one. Participants were interviewed about their health by either an embodied humanoid robot or a robot‑like agent, either in person or via a life‑size projection on a screen. Participants were more engaged, disclosed less undesirable behavior, and forgot more with the robot than the agent; they ate less and anthropomorphized most with the collocated robot, and interacted socially and attempted conversational grounding despite knowing it was a machine.

Abstract

People's physical embodiment and presence increase their salience and importance. We predicted people would anthropomorphize an embodied humanoid robot more than a robot–like agent, and a collocated more than a remote robot. A robot or robot–like agent interviewed participants about their health. Participants were either present with the robot/agent, or interacted remotely with the robot/agent projected life–size on a screen. Participants were more engaged, disclosed less undesirable behavior, and forgot more with the robot versus the agent. They ate less and anthropomorphized most with the collocated robot. Participants interacted socially and attempted conversational grounding with the robot/agent though aware it was a machine. Basic questions remain about how people resolve the ambiguity of interacting with a humanlike nonhuman.