Perception of experience influences altruism and perception of agency influences trust in human-machine interactions.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 May 2024
30 May 2024
Historique:
received:
10
10
2023
accepted:
28
05
2024
medline:
30
5
2024
pubmed:
30
5
2024
entrez:
29
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
As robots become increasingly integrated into social economic interactions, it becomes crucial to understand how people perceive a robot's mind. It has been argued that minds are perceived along two dimensions: experience, i.e., the ability to feel, and agency, i.e., the ability to act and take responsibility for one's actions. However, the influence of these perceived dimensions on human-machine interactions, particularly those involving altruism and trust, remains unknown. We hypothesize that the perception of experience influences altruism, while the perception of agency influences trust. To test these hypotheses, we pair participants with bot partners in a dictator game (to measure altruism) and a trust game (to measure trust) while varying the bots' perceived experience and agency, either by manipulating the degree to which the bot resembles humans, or by manipulating the description of the bots' ability to feel and exercise self-control. The results demonstrate that the money transferred in the dictator game is influenced by the perceived experience, while the money transferred in the trust game is influenced by the perceived agency, thereby confirming our hypotheses. More broadly, our findings support the specificity of the mind hypothesis: Perceptions of different dimensions of the mind lead to different kinds of social behavior.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38811749
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-63360-w
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-63360-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
12410Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Yang, G.-Z. et al. The grand challenges of science robotics. Sci. Robot. 3, eaar7650 (2018).
pubmed: 33141701
Fukuda, T., Dario, P. & Yang, G.-Z. Humanoid robotics–history, current state of the art, and challenges. Sci. Robot. 2, eaar4043 (2017).
pubmed: 33157881
Clabaugh, C. & Matarić, M. Robots for the people, by the people: Personalizing human–machine interaction. Sci. Robot. 3, eaat7451 (2018).
pubmed: 33141723
Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B. & Tanaka, F. Social robots for education: A review. Sci. Robot. 3, eaat5954 (2018).
pubmed: 33141719
Robinson, H., MacDonald, B. & Broadbent, E. The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: A review. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6, 575–591 (2014).
Kellmeyer, P., Mueller, O., Feingold-Polak, R. & Levy-Tzedek, S. Social robots in rehabilitation: A question of trust. Sci. Robot. 3, eaat1587 (2018).
pubmed: 33141717
Yam, K. C. et al. Robots at work: People prefer–and forgive–service robots with perceived feelings. J. Appl. Psychol. 106, 1557 (2021).
pubmed: 33030919
Ziemke, T. Understanding robots. Sci. Robot. 5, eabe2987 (2020).
pubmed: 32999050
Airenti, G. The cognitive bases of anthropomorphism: From relatedness to empathy. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7, 117–127 (2015).
Yang, G.-Z., Dario, P. & Kragic, D. Social robotics—trust, learning, and social interaction (2018).
Thompson, E. et al. Empathy and human experience. Sci. Relig. Hum. Exp. 27, 261–287 (2005).
Thompson, E. Empathy and consciousness. J. Conscious. Stud. 8, 1–32 (2001).
Elster, J. Rationality, morality, and collective action. Ethics 96, 136–155 (1985).
Evans, K. D., Robbins, S. A. & Bryson, J. J. Do we collaborate with what we design? Top. Cognit. Sci. (2023).
Batson, C. D. et al. Empathy and altruism. In The Oxford handbook of hypo-egoic phenomena 161–174 (2002).
Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T. & Birch, K. Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 40, 290 (1981).
Krebs, D. Empathy and altruism. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 32, 1134 (1975).
Bethlehem, R. A. et al. Does empathy predict altruism in the wild?. Soc. Neurosci. 12, 743–750 (2017).
pubmed: 27759496
Hardin, R. Trustworthiness. Ethics 107, 26–42 (1996).
Ostrom, E. & Walker, J. Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons for experimental research (Russell Sage Foundation, 2003).
Gray, H. M., Gray, K. & Wegner, D. M. Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315, 619–619 (2007).
pubmed: 17272713
Schein, C. & Gray, K. The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev 22, 32–70 (2018).
Wegner, D. M. & Gray, K. in The Mind Club: Who Thinks, What Feels, and Why it Matters (Penguin, 2017).
Gray, K., Young, L. & Waytz, A. Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychol. Inq. 23, 101–124 (2012).
pubmed: 22754268
pmcid: 3379786
Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N. & Wegner, D. M. Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 14, 383–388 (2010).
pubmed: 20579932
McDonald, N. M. & Messinger, D. S. The development of empathy: How, when, and why. Moral behavior and free will: A neurobiological and philosophical approach 333–359 (2011).
Gjersoe, N. L., Hall, E. L. & Hood, B. Children attribute mental lives to toys when they are emotionally attached to them. Cogn. Dev. 34, 28–38 (2015).
Loughnan, S., Bastian, B. & Haslam, N. The psychology of eating animals. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23, 104–108 (2014).
Gray, K., Jenkins, A. C., Heberlein, A. S. & Wegner, D. M. Distortions of mind perception in psychopathology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 477–479 (2011).
pubmed: 21187372
Gray, K. & Wegner, D. M. Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition 125, 125–130 (2012).
pubmed: 22784682
Batson, C. D., Darley, J. M. & Coke, J. S. Altruism and human kindness: Internal and external determinants of helping behavior. In Perspectives in interactional psychology, 111–140 (Springer, 1978).
Klimecki, O. M., Mayer, S. V., Jusyte, A., Scheeff, J. & Schönenberg, M. Empathy promotes altruistic behavior in economic interactions. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–5 (2016).
Ma, Y., Wang, C. & Han, S. Neural responses to perceived pain in others predict real-life monetary donations in different socioeconomic contexts. NeuroImage 57, 1273–1280 (2011).
pubmed: 21596143
Barney, J. B. & Hansen, M. H. Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strateg. Manag. J. 15, 175–190 (1994).
Bacharach, M. & Gambetta, D. Trust in signs. Trust Soc. 2, 148–184 (2001).
Eckel, C. C. & Grossman, P. J. Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games Econ. Behav. 16, 181–191 (1996).
Edele, A., Dziobek, I. & Keller, M. Explaining altruistic sharing in the dictator game: The role of affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and justice sensitivity. Learn. Individ. Differ. 24, 96–102 (2013).
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J. & McCabe, K. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10, 122–142 (1995).
Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F. & Kageki, N. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19, 98–100 (2012).
Wang, S., Lilienfeld, S. O. & Rochat, P. The uncanny valley: Existence and explanations. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 19, 393–407 (2015).
Zhang, J. et al. A literature review of the research on the uncanny valley. In International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction, 255–268 (Springer, 2020).
MacDorman, K. F. & Ishiguro, H. The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interact. Stud. 7, 297–337 (2006).
Diel, A., Weigelt, S. & Macdorman, K. F. A meta-analysis of the uncanny valley’s independent and dependent variables. ACM Trans. Hum. Robot Interact. (THRI) 11, 1–33 (2021).
Karras, T., Laine, S. & Aila, T. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 4396–4405 (2019).
Engel, C. Dictator games: A meta study. Exp. Econ. 14, 583–610 (2011).
Ermisch, J., Gambetta, D., Laurie, H., Siedler, T. & Noah Uhrig, S. Measuring people’s trust. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A Stat. Soc. 172, 749–769 (2009).
Bohnet, I. & Zeckhauser, R. Trust, risk and betrayal. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 55, 467–484 (2004).
Mathur, M. B. & Reichling, D. B. Navigating a social world with robot partners: A quantitative cartography of the uncanny valley. Cognition 146, 22–32 (2016).
pubmed: 26402646
West, R. Humanoid robot in japan boasts 42 pneumatic actuators and countless creepy moves (2016). http://inventorspot.com/articles/eerily-human-robot-alter-veritable-creep-show .
Goddard, G. Uncanny valley: 6 robots so creepy they’ll haunt your dreams (2018). https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/uncanny-valley-robots-so-creepy-theyll-haunt-your-dreams/ .
Schwarz, R. 10 creepy examples of the uncanny valley (2013). https://www.strangerdimensions.com/2013/11/25/10-creepy-examples-uncanny-valley/ .
Ishihara, H. & Asada, M. “affetto”: Towards a design of robots who can physically interact with people , which biases the perception of affinity ( beyond “uncanny”) * (2013).
Ishowo-Oloko, F. et al. Behavioural evidence for a transparency-efficiency tradeoff in human–machine cooperation. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 517–521 (2019).
Litman, L., Robinson, J. & Abberbock, T. Turkprime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 49, 433–442 (2017).
pubmed: 27071389
Chandler, J., Paolacci, G. & Hauser, D. Data quality issues on mturk. Litman, L. & Robinson, J. (eds.) Conducting Online Research on Amazon Mechanical Turk and Beyond chap. 5, 95–120 (2020).
Kennedy, R. et al. The shape of and solutions to the mturk quality crisis. Political Sci. Res. Methods 8, 614–629 (2020).