S/he's too Warm/Agentic!: The Influence of Gender on Uncanny Reactions to Robots

ABSTRACT

Gender stereotypes are strong influences on human behavior. Given our tendency to anthropomorphize, incorporating gender cues into a robot's design can influence acceptance by humans. However, little is known about the interaction between human and robot gender. We focus on the role of gender in eliciting negative, ``uncanny" reactions from observers. We create a corpus of YouTube videos featuring robots with female, male and no gender cues. Our experiment is grounded in Gray and Wegner's (2012) model, which holds that uncanny reactions are driven by the perception of robot agency (i.e., ability to plan and control) and experience (i.e., ability to feel), which in turn, is driven by robot appearance and behavior. Participants watched videos and completed questionnaires to gauge perceptions of robots as well as affective reactions. We used Structural Equation Modeling to test whether the model explains reactions of both men and women. For gender-neutral robots, it does. However, we find a salient human-robot gender interaction. Men's uncanny reactions to robots with female cues are best predicted by the perception of experience, while women's negativity toward masculine robots is driven by perceived agency. The result is interpreted in light of the ``Big Two" dimensions of person perception, which underlie expectations for women to be warm and men to be agentic. When a robot meets these expectations, it increases the chances of an uncanny reaction in the other-gender observer.

References

1. A. E. Abele and S. Bruckmüller. The bigger one of the "Big Two"? Preferential processing of communal information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5):935--948, 2011.
2. K. O. Arras and D. Cerqui. Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots' a 2000 people survey. Technical report, 2005.
3. J. A. Bargh. The cognitive monster: The case against the controllability of automatic stereotype effects. 1999.
4. S. Brahnam and A. De Angeli. Gender affordances of conversational agents. Interacting with Computers, 24(3):139--153, 2012.
5. L. L. Carli. Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5):941, 1990.
6. J. Carpenter, J. M. Davis, N. Erwin-Stewart, T. R. Lee, J. D. Bransford, and N. Vye. Gender representation and humanoid robots designed for domestic use. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(3):261--265, 2009.
7. A. J. Cuddy, S. T. Fiske, and P. Glick. Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the bias map. Advances in experimental social psychology, 40:61--149, 2008.
8. A. De Angeli, S. Brahnam, P. Wallis, and A. Dix. Misuse and abuse of interactive technologies. In CHI'06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1647--1650. ACM, 2006.
9. A. B. Diekman and A. H. Eagly. Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 26(10):1171--1188, 2000.
10. C. F. DiSalvo, F. Gemperle, J. Forlizzi, and S. Kiesler. All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, pages 321--326. ACM, 2002.
11. B. R. Duffy. Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and autonomous systems, 42(3):177--190, 2003.
12. F. Eyssel and F. Hegel. (S) he's Got the Look: Gender Stereotyping of Robots. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9):2213--2230, 2012.
13. F. Eyssel, D. Kuchenbrandt, S. Bobinger, L. de Ruiter, and F. Hegel. '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 seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 125--126. ACM, 2012.
14. S. T. Fiske, A. J. Cuddy, P. Glick, and J. Xu. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(6):878, 2002.
15. K. Gray, A. C. Jenkins, A. S. Heberlein, and D. M. Wegner. Distortions of mind perception in psychopathology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(2):477--479, 2011.
16. K. Gray and D. M. Wegner. Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition, 125(1):125--130, 2012.
17. A. G. Greenwald and M. R. Banaji. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological review, 102(1):4, 1995.
18. R. E. Guadagno, J. Blascovich, J. N. Bailenson, and C. Mccall. Virtual humans and persuasion: The effects of agency and behavioral realism. Media Psychology, 10(1):1--22, 2007.
19. D. L. Hamilton and T. K. Trolier. Stereotypes and stereotyping: An overview of the cognitive approach. 1986.
20. E. H. Jung, T. F. Waddell, and S. S. Sundar. Feminizing robots: User responses to gender cues on robot body and screen.
21. C. D. Kidd and C. Breazeal. Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004.(IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, volume 4, pages 3559--3564. IEEE, 2004.
22. K. F. MacDorman. Subjective ratings of robot video clips for human likeness, familiarity, and eeriness: An exploration of the uncanny valley. In ICCS/CogSci-2006 long symposium: Toward social mechanisms of android science, pages 26--29, 2006.
23. K. F. MacDorman and H. Ishiguro. The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies, 7(3):297--337, 2006.
24. C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, and R. Spears. Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
25. T. Minato, M. Shimada, H. Ishiguro, and S. Itakura. Development of an android robot for studying human-robot interaction.
26. M. Mori, K. F. MacDorman, and N. Kageki. The uncanny valley {from the field}. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2):98--100, 2012.
27. C. A. Moss-Racusin, J. E. Phelan, and L. A. Rudman. When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(2):140, 2010.
28. C. Nass and Y. Moon. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of social issues, 56(1):81--103, 2000.
29. C. Nass, Y. Moon, and N. Green. Are Machines Gender Neutral? Gender-Stereotypic Responses to Computers With Voices. Journal of applied social psychology, 27(10):864--876, 1997.
30. C. Nass, J. Steuer, and E. R. Tauber. Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 72--78. ACM, 1994.
31. J. Rhim, Y. Kim, M.-S. Kim, and D. Y. Yim. The effect of gender cue alterations of robot to match task attributes on user's acceptance perception. In Proceedings of HCI Korea, pages 51--57. Hanbit Media, Inc., 2014.
32. L. Ring, L. Shi, K. Totzke, and T. Bickmore. Social support agents for older adults: longitudinal affective computing in the home. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 9(1):79--88, 2015.
33. J. Ross, L. Irani, M. Silberman, A. Zaldivar, and B. Tomlinson. Who are the crowdworkers?: shifting demographics in Mechanical Turk. In CHI'10 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pages 2863--2872. ACM, 2010.
34. L. A. Rudman and J. E. Phelan. Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 28:61--79, 2008.
35. P. Schermerhorn, M. Scheutz, and C. R. Crowell. Robot social presence and gender: Do females view robots differently than males? In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction, pages 263--270. ACM, 2008.
36. T. Shibata and K. Wada. Robot therapy: A new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly--a mini-review. Gerontology, 57(4):378--386, 2010.
37. M. Siegel, C. Breazeal, and M. I. Norton. Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 2563--2568. IEEE, 2009.
38. J.-Y. Sung, R. E. Grinter, H. I. Christensen, and L. Guo. Housewives or technophiles?: Understanding domestic robot owners. In Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on, pages 129--136. IEEE, 2008.
39. M. L. Walters, D. S. Syrdal, K. Dautenhahn, R. Te Boekhorst, and K. L. Koay. Avoiding the uncanny valley: Robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Autonomous Robots, 24(2):159--178, 2008.
40. C. Zanbaka, P. Goolkasian, and L. Hodges. Can a virtual cat persuade you?: The role of gender and realism in speaker persuasiveness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, pages 1153--1162. ACM, 2006.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Law, social and behavioral sciences

    • Psychology

• Computer systems organization

  • Embedded and cyber-physical systems

    • Robotics

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • HCI design and evaluation methods

      • User studies