Social robotics and the modulation of social perception and bias.
bias
cognition
prejudice
robot
social
stereotypes
Journal
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences
ISSN: 1471-2970
Titre abrégé: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7503623
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 04 2019
29 04 2019
Historique:
entrez:
12
3
2019
pubmed:
12
3
2019
medline:
4
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The field of social robotics offers an unprecedented opportunity to probe the process of impression formation and the effects of identity-based stereotypes (e.g. about gender or race) on social judgements and interactions. We present the concept of fair proxy communication-a form of robot-mediated communication that proceeds in the absence of potentially biasing identity cues-and describe how this application of social robotics may be used to illuminate implicit bias in social cognition and inform novel interventions to reduce bias. We discuss key questions and challenges for the use of robots in research on the social cognition of bias and offer some practical recommendations. We conclude by discussing boundary conditions of this new form of interaction and by raising some ethical concerns about the inclusion of social robots in psychological research and interventions. This article is part of the theme issue 'From social brains to social robots: applying neurocognitive insights to human-robot interaction'.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30853001
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2018.0037
pmc: PMC6452255
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20180037Références
J Cogn Neurosci. 1996 Nov;8(6):551-565
pubmed: 20740065
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018 May 11;:
pubmed: 29749634
Front Psychol. 2017 Aug 30;8:1366
pubmed: 28912736
Br J Soc Psychol. 2012 Dec;51(4):724-31
pubmed: 22103234
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Aug;143(4):1765-85
pubmed: 24661055
Neuroimage. 2003 Aug;19(4):1835-42
pubmed: 12948738
J Neurosci. 1997 Jun 1;17(11):4302-11
pubmed: 9151747
Front Psychol. 2015 Nov 20;6:1701
pubmed: 26635646
Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Feb;22(1):31-46
pubmed: 25736832
Psychol Sci. 2004 Feb;15(2):88-93
pubmed: 14738514
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 May 5;371(1693):
pubmed: 27069052
Emotion. 2012 Dec;12(6):1273-80
pubmed: 22775128
Trends Cogn Sci. 2016 May;20(5):362-374
pubmed: 27050834
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014 Sep;9(9):1276-80
pubmed: 23887807
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014 Aug;9(8):1055-61
pubmed: 23709354
Soc Neurosci. 2017 Apr;12(2):218-231
pubmed: 26794726
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006 Apr;7(4):268-77
pubmed: 16552413
PLoS One. 2010 Jul 21;5(7):e11577
pubmed: 20657777
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Dec;85(6):1035-48
pubmed: 14674812
Hum Brain Mapp. 2012 Sep;33(9):2238-54
pubmed: 21898675
Neuroimage. 2002 Jul;16(3 Pt 1):814-21
pubmed: 12169265
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010 May;5(3):219-32
pubmed: 24839457
Comput Human Behav. 2009 May 1;25(3):695-710
pubmed: 25506126
Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Jun;19(2):407-33
pubmed: 22212357
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2011 Jan;6(1):90-7
pubmed: 20194513
Cognition. 2002 Feb;83(1):1-29
pubmed: 11814484
J Cogn Neurosci. 2011 Aug;23(8):1911-20
pubmed: 20849234
J Abnorm Psychol. 1946 Jul;41:258-90
pubmed: 20995551
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2018 Aug;115(2):255-275
pubmed: 30024242
Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Sep;8(9):396-403
pubmed: 15350240
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Oct;24(5):1521-1536
pubmed: 28936795
Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31
pubmed: 17835457
Front Psychol. 2017 Oct 04;8:1663
pubmed: 29046651
PLoS One. 2008 Jul 09;3(7):e2597
pubmed: 18612463
Conscious Cogn. 2016 Nov;46:99-109
pubmed: 27689514
J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Sep;22(9):1231-8
pubmed: 17594129
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2016 Aug;2016:3269-3272
pubmed: 28269005
Annu Rev Psychol. 2000;51:93-120
pubmed: 10751966
Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 Jan;23(1):21-33
pubmed: 30466793
Front Psychol. 2015 Oct 20;6:1532
pubmed: 26539132