The Intentional Stance Test-2: How to Measure the Tendency to Adopt Intentional Stance Towards Robots.
human-robot interaction (HRI)
intentional stance theory
measurement
mentalization
social robotics/HRI
Journal
Frontiers in robotics and AI
ISSN: 2296-9144
Titre abrégé: Front Robot AI
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101749350
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
10
02
2021
accepted:
20
09
2021
entrez:
25
10
2021
pubmed:
26
10
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In human-robot interactions, people tend to attribute to robots mental states such as intentions or desires, in order to make sense of their behaviour. This cognitive strategy is termed "intentional stance". Adopting the intentional stance influences how one will consider, engage and behave towards robots. However, people differ in their likelihood to adopt intentional stance towards robots. Therefore, it seems crucial to assess these interindividual differences. In two studies we developed and validated the structure of a task aiming at evaluating to what extent people adopt intentional stance towards robot actions, the Intentional Stance task (IST). The Intentional Stance Task consists in a task that probes participants' stance by requiring them to choose the plausibility of a description (mentalistic vs. mechanistic) of behaviour of a robot depicted in a scenario composed of three photographs. Results showed a reliable psychometric structure of the IST. This paper therefore concludes with the proposal of using the IST as a proxy for assessing the degree of adoption of the intentional stance towards robots.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34692776
doi: 10.3389/frobt.2021.666586
pii: 666586
pmc: PMC8529049
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
666586Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Spatola, Marchesi and Wykowska.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Psychol Rev. 1996 Apr;103(2):263-83
pubmed: 8637961
Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):771-80
pubmed: 18692779
Multivariate Behav Res. 1990 Jan 1;25(1):33-9
pubmed: 26741966
Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:255-78
pubmed: 18154502
Cognition. 2009 Dec;113(3):329-349
pubmed: 19729154
Front Psychol. 2019 Mar 15;10:450
pubmed: 30930808
J Pers Assess. 1984 Jun;48(3):306-7
pubmed: 16367530
Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65:399-423
pubmed: 23808915
Multivariate Behav Res. 1990 Jan 1;25(1):1-28
pubmed: 26741964
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994 Dec;67(6):1049-62
pubmed: 7815301
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Oct 02;14:113
pubmed: 25272975
Prostaglandins. 1976 Feb;11(2):423-4
pubmed: 4856
Sci Robot. 2018 Aug 15;3(21):
pubmed: 33141718
Sci Robot. 2018 Jan 31;3(14):
pubmed: 33141701
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2006;10(3):252-64
pubmed: 16859440
Multivariate Behav Res. 1993 Jul 1;28(3):263-311
pubmed: 26776890
Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Jun 21;6:189
pubmed: 22737119
Front Psychol. 2017 Nov 14;8:1962
pubmed: 29184519
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 Sep;99(3):410-35
pubmed: 20649365
Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Aug;14(8):383-8
pubmed: 20579932
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2016 Mar;110(3):343-70
pubmed: 26963763
Mem Cognit. 1983 May;11(3):211-27
pubmed: 6621337
Annu Rev Psychol. 2018 Jan 4;69:299-327
pubmed: 28841390
Cognition. 1995 Nov;57(2):109-28
pubmed: 8556839
Multivariate Behav Res. 1977 Jan 1;12(1):43-7
pubmed: 26804143
Psychol Methods. 2009 Mar;14(1):6-23
pubmed: 19271845
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 Apr;90(4):543-55
pubmed: 16649854
Neuroimage. 2013 Oct 1;79:313-28
pubmed: 23657147
Psychol Rev. 2007 Oct;114(4):864-86
pubmed: 17907867
J Biol Chem. 1975 Dec 10;250(23):9099-105
pubmed: 392