This article investigates the attribution of mental state (AMS) to an anthropomorphic robot by humans in a strategic interaction. We conducted an experiment in which human subjects are paired with either a human or an anthropomorphic robot to play an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma game, and we tested whether AMS is dependent on the robot “consistency,” that is, the correspondence between the robot’s verbal reaction and its behavior after a nonoptimal social outcome of the game is obtained. We find that human partners are attributed a higher mental state level than robotic partners, regardless of the partner's consistency between words and actions. Conversely, the level of AMS assigned to the robot is significantly higher when the robot is consistent in its words and actions. This finding is robust to the inclusion of psychological factors such as risk attitude and trust, and it holds regardless of subjects’ initial beliefs about the adaptability of the robot. Finally, we find that when the robot apologizes for its behavior and defects in the following stage, the epistemic component of the AMS significantly increases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BreazealC, DautenhahnK, KandaT. andSocial robotics. In Springer handbook of robotics. Springer; 2016; pp. 1935–1972.
2.
PettinicoG, MilneGR. The Coming Age of Robots: Implications for Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy. Business Expert Press, 2020.
3.
YoussefK, SaidS, AlkorkS, et al.A survey on recent advances in social robotics. Robotics, 2022; 11(4):75.
4.
MooreRK. From talking and listening robots to intelligent communicative machines. In Robots that talk and listen. De Gruyter; 2015; pp. 317–335.
5.
BanksJ. Theory of mind in social robots: Replication of five established human tests. Int J of Soc Robot, 2020; 12(2):403–414.
6.
ThellmanS, de GraafM, ZiemkeT. Mental state attribution to robots: A systematic review of conceptions, methods, and findings. J Hum-Robot Interact, 2022; 11(4):1–51.
7.
JohnsonJ. Is talk really cheap? Prompting conversation between critical theory and rational choice. Am Polit Sci Rev, 1993; 87(1):74–86.
8.
SallyD. Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality Society, 1995; 7(1):58–92.
9.
JeffreysM. How can “cheap talk” yield coordination, given a conflict? Mind Society, 2008; 7(1):95–108.
10.
BrennanSE, GalatiA, KuhlenAK. Two minds, one dialog: Coordinating speaking and understanding. In Psychology of learning and motivation, volume 53. Elsevier; 2010, pp. 301–344.
11.
AdamsZ, LudwiczakA, SharmaD, et al.Verbal interaction in a social dilemma. Rationality Society, 2022; 34(3):334–367.
12.
DumouchelP, DamianoL. Living with robots. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, USA; 2017.
13.
DamianoL, DumouchelP. Anthropomorphism in human–robot co-evolution. Front Psychol, 2018; 9:468.
14.
ManziF, PerettiG, Di DioC, et al.A robot is not worth another: Exploring children’s mental state attribution to different humanoid robots. Front Psychol, 2020; 11:2011.
15.
ManziF, Di DioC, Di LerniaD, et al.Can you activate me? from robots to human brain. Front Robot AI, 2021; 8:633514.
16.
ManziF, SorgenteA, MassaroD, et al.Emerging adults’ expectations about the next generation of robots: Exploring robotic needs through a latent profile analysis. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2021; 24(5):315–323.
17.
BallietD. Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analytic review. J Conflict Resol, 2010; 54(1):39–57.
18.
ManziF, MassaroD, KandaT, et al.and Teoria della mente, bambini e robot: l’attribuzione di stati mentali. In XXX Congresso Nazionale, Associazione Italiana di Psicologia, Sezione di Psicologia dello Sviluppo e dell’Educazione. Alpes Italia srl; 2017, pp. 65–66.
19.
MaggioniMA, RossignoliD. If it looks like a human and speaks like a human . . . Communication and cooperation in strategic Human–Robot interactions. J Behav Exp Econ, 2023; 104:102011.
20.
Alós-FerrerC. A review essay on social neuroscience: Can research on the social brain and economics inform each other? J Econ Lit, 2018; 56(1):234–264.
ChugunovaM, SeleD. We and it: An interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on human-machine interaction. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, (20–15), 2020.
23.
KlockmannV, von SchenkA, VillevalMC. Artificial intelligence, ethics, and intergenerational responsibility. J Econ Behav Org, 2021; 203:284–317.
24.
CollinsMG, JuvinaI, GluckKA. Cognitive model of trust dynamics predicts human behavior within and between two games of strategic interaction with computerized confederate agents. Front Psychol, 2016; 7:49.
25.
ZanattoD, PatacchiolaM, GoslinJ, et al.Investigating cooperation with robotic peers. PLoS One, 2019; 14(11):e0225028.
26.
OliveiraR, ArriagaP, SantosFP, et al.Towards prosocial design: A scoping review of the use of robots and virtual agents to trigger prosocial behaviour. Comput Hum Behav, 2021; 114:106547.
27.
De VisserEJ, PeetersMMM, JungMF, et al.Towards a theory of longitudinal trust calibration in human–robot teams. Int J of Soc Robot, 2020; 12(2):459–478.
28.
RobaczewskiA, BouchardJ, BouchardK, et al.Socially assistive robots: The specific case of the NAO. Int J of Soc Robot, 2020; 13(4):795–831.
29.
SandovalEB, BrandstetterJ, ObaidM, et al.Reciprocity in human-robot interaction: A quantitative approach through the prisoner’s dilemma and the ultimatum game. Int J of Soc Robot, 2016; 8(2):303–317.
30.
Baron-CohenS, LeslieAM, FrithU. Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 1985; 21(1):37–46.
31.
PremackD, WoodruffG. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav Brain Sci, 1978; 1(4):515–526.
32.
WimmerH, PernerJ. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 1983; 13(1):103–128.
33.
PernerJ, WimmerH. “john thinks that mary thinks that…” attribution of second-order beliefs by 5-to 10-year-old children. J Exp Child Psychol, 1985; 39(3):437–471.
34.
FrithC, FrithU. Theory of mind. Curr Biol, 2005; 15(17):R644–R646.
35.
MarchettiA, ManziF, ItakuraS, et al.Theory of mind and humanoid robots from a lifespan perspective. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 2018; 226(2):98–109.
36.
ZoncaJ, FolsøA, SciuttiA. The role of reciprocity in human–robot social influence. Iscience, 2021; 24(12):103424.
37.
SacinoA, CocchellaF, De VitaG, et al.Human- or object-like? Cognitive anthropomorphism of humanoid robots. PLoS One, 2022; 17(7):e0270787.
38.
RoselliC, MarchesiS, De TommasoD, et al.The role of prior exposure in the likelihood of adopting the intentional stance toward a humanoid robot. Paladyn J Behav Robot, 2023; 14(1):20220103.
39.
KirtayM, OztopE, KuhlenAK, et al.Trustworthiness assessment in multimodal human-robot interaction based on cognitive load. In 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); 2022, pp. 469–476; doi: 10.1109/RO-MAN53752.2022.9900730
40.
KirtayM, HafnerVV, AsadaM, et al.Trust in robot-robot scaffolding. IEEE Trans Cogn Dev Syst, 2023; 15(4):1841–1852.
41.
TaliaronakV, LangeAL, KirtayM, et al.Advancing humanoid robots for social integration: Evaluating trustworthiness through a social cognitive framework. In 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE; 2023, pp. 2112–2119.
42.
SlaughterV, PetersonCC, CarpenterM. Maternal mental state talk and infants’ early gestural communication. J Child Lang, 2009; 36(5):1053–1074.
43.
Di DioC, ManziF, ItakuraS, et al.It does not matter who you are: Fairness in pre-schoolers interacting with human and robotic partners. Int J of Soc Robot, 2020; 12(5):1045–1059.
44.
Di DioC, ManziF, PerettiG, et al.Come i bambini pensano alla mente del robot. il ruolo dell’attaccamento e della teoria della mente nell’attribuzione di stati mentali ad un agente robotico. Sistemi Intelligenti, 2020; 32(1):41–56.
45.
Di DioC, ManziF, PerettiG, et al.Shall i trust you? from child–robot interaction to trusting relationships. Front Psychol, 2020; 11:469.
46.
MiragliaL, ManziF, PerettiG, et al.What kind of things have a mind? Development and validation of the attri-bution of mental states. Mimeo; 2022.
47.
ManziF, MiragliaL, Di DioC, et al.Anthropomorphization of robots and attribution of mental states: Hints for the design of hybrid societies. In Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation. Springer; 2023, forthcoming.
48.
ShortE, HartJ, VuM, et al.No fair!! an interaction with a cheating robot. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE; 2010, pp. 219–226.
49.
DohmenT, FalkA, HuffmanD, et al.Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J Eur Econ Assoc, 2011; 9(3):522–550.
50.
Inter-University Consortium for Political Research. Election Study. University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, Michigan; 1964.
51.
YamagishiT. The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1986; 51(1):110–116.
52.
FalconeR, CastelfranchiC. Trust dynamics: How trust is influenced by direct experiences and by trust itself. In Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004. IEEE; 2004, pp. 740–747.
53.
KruegerF, Meyer-LindenbergA. Toward a model of interpersonal trust drawn from neuroscience, psychology, and economics. Trends Neurosci, 2019; 42(2):92–101.
54.
Daniel Clement Dennett. The intentional stance. MIT press, 1987.
55.
SanfeyAG, RillingJK, AronsonJA, et al.The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 2003; 300(5626):1755–1758.
56.
SpatolaN, WudarczykOA. Implicit attitudes towards robots predict explicit attitudes, semantic distance between robots and humans, anthropomorphism, and prosocial behavior: From attitudes to human–robot interaction. Int J of Soc Robot, 2020; 13(5):1149–1159; doi: 10.1007/s12369-020-00701-5
57.
ArkinJ, ParkD, RoyS, et al.Multimodal estimation and communication of latent semantic knowledge for robust execution of robot instructions. Int J Robot Res, 2020; 39(10–11):1279–1304; doi: 10.1177/0278364920917755
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
