Like early work on human intergroup interaction, previous research on people’s willingness to interact with robots has focused mainly on effects of anxiety. However, existing findings suggest that other negative emotions as well as some positive emotions also have effects. This article systematically examines the roles of positive and negative emotions in predicting willingness to interact with robots, using an integrative analysis of data across five studies that use diverse interaction conditions and several types of robots. We hypothesize and find that positive emotions account for more variance than negative emotions. Practically, the findings suggest new strategies for interventions, aimed at increasing positive emotions to increase willingness to engage in intergroup interaction. No existing work has examined whether positive emotions are stronger predictors than negative emotions for willingness for human intergroup interaction, an important topic for future research.
AronA.AronE. N. (1997). Self-expansion motivation and including other in the self. In DuckS. (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 251–270). John Wiley.
2.
BarlowF. K.HornseyM. J.HaywardL. E.HoukamauC. A.KangJ.MilojevP.SibleyC. G. (2019). Why do we hold mixed emotions about racial out-groups? A case for affect matching. Psychological Science, 30, 917–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619844269
3.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
BinderJ.ZagefkaH.BrownR.FunkeF.KesslerT.MummendeyA.. . . LeyensJ. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843–856. https://doi.org./10.1037/a0013470
BrauerM.CurtinJ. J. (2017). Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within-items. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000159
BurnsK. C.IsbellL. M.TylerJ. M. (2008). Suppressing emotions toward stereotyped targets: The impact on willingness to engage in contact. Social Cognition, 26(3), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.008.26.3.276
10.
CottrellC. A.NeubergS. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to “prejudice.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 770–789. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770
11.
CurranP. J.HussongA. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14(2), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015914
12.
de GraafM. M.AllouchS. B. (2013). Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61(12), 1476–1486.
13.
EssesV.DovidioJ. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1202–1214.
14.
EysselF.HegelF. (2012). (S)he’s got the look: Gender stereotyping of robots. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), 2213–2230.
15.
EysselF.KuchenbrandtD. (2012). Social categorization of social robots: Anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4), 724–731.
16.
GreenwaldA. G.PettigrewT. F. (2014). With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. American Psychologist, 69(7), 669–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036056
HalperinE.Cohen-ChenS.GoldenbergA. (2014). Indirect emotion regulation in intractable conflicts: A new approach to conflict resolution. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.923155
19.
HalperinE.PoratR.TamirM.GrossJ. J. (2013). Can emotion regulation change political attitudes in intractable conflicts? From the laboratory to the field. Psychological Science, 24(1), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612452572
20.
HeerinkM.KroseB.WielingaB.EversV. (2008, March12–15). Enjoyment, intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people [Paper presentation]. 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’08), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
21.
HoC. C.MacDormanK. F.PramonoZ. D. (2008, March12–15). Human emotion and the uncanny valley: A GLM, MDS, and isomap analysis of robot video ratings [Paper presentation]. 20083rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’08)Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
22.
HodsonG.CrispR. J.MeleadyR.EarleM. (2018). Intergroup contact as an agent of cognitive liberalization. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(5), 523–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617752324
23.
JuddC.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 601–625. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702
24.
KennyD. A.JuddC. M. (2019). The unappreciated heterogeneity of effect sizes: Implications for power, precision, planning of research, and replication. Psychological Methods, 24(5), 578–589.
25.
LeDouxJ. (2012). Rethinking the emotional brain. Neuron, 73, 653–676.
26.
MacDormanK. F.EntezariS. O. (2015). Individual differences predict sensitivity to the uncanny valley. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 16, 141–172.
27.
MackieD. M.SmithE. R. (2018). Intergroup emotions theory: Production, regulation, and modification of group-based emotions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 1–69.
28.
MarchD. S.GaertnerL.OlsonM. A. (2017). In harm’s way: On preferential response to threatening stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 43(11), 1519–1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217722558
29.
MillerD. A.SmithE. R.MackieD. M. (2004). Effects of intergroup contact and political predispositions on prejudice: Role of intergroup emotions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(3), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430204046109
30.
MoriM.MacDormanK. F.KagekiN. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 19, 98–100.
31.
MuthC.OraveczZ.GabryJ. (2018). User-friendly Bayesian regression modeling: A tutorial with rstanarm and shinystan. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 14(2), 99–119.
32.
NomuraT.KandaT.SuzukiT. (2006). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI & Society, 20(2), 138–150.
33.
ÖhmanA.MinekaS. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483–522.
34.
PaoliniS.HarwoodJ.HewstoneM.NeumannD. L. (2018). Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers of research on building social integration. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12, Article e12422. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12422
35.
PettigrewT. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.
36.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. doi:http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.75
37.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Psychology Press.
38.
PlantE. A. (2004). Responses to interracial interactions over time. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 30(11), 1458–1471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264244
39.
PlantE. A.ButzD. A.TartakovskyM. (2008). Interethnic interactions: Expectancies, emotions, and behavioral intentions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(4), 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208095827
40.
ReevesB.NassC. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media. Cambridge University Press.
41.
ReissmanC.AronA.BergenM. R. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 243–254.
42.
SegerC. R.BanerjiI.ParkS. H.SmithE. R.MackieD. M. (2017). Specific emotions as mediators of the effect of intergroup contact on prejudice: Findings across multiple participant and target groups. Cognition and Emotion, 31(5), 923–936. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1182893
TakayanagiK.KiritaT.ShibataT. (2014). Comparison of verbal and emotional responses of elderly people with mild/moderate dementia and those with severe dementia in responses to seal robot, PARO. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 6, Article 257.
45.
WangS.LilienfeldS. O.RochatP. (2015). The uncanny valley: Existence and explanations. Review of General Psychology, 19, 393–407.
46.
WeaverC. N. (2008). Social distance as a measure of prejudice among ethnic groups in the united states. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(3), 779–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00326.x
47.
WebbT. L.SheeranP. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249–268.
48.
WeissA.WurhoferD.TscheligiM. (2009). “I love this dog”—Children’s emotional attachment to the robotic dog AIBO. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1, 243–248.
49.
ZlotowskiJ. A.SumiokaH.NishioS.GlasD. F.BartneckC.IshiguroH. (2015). Persistence of the uncanny valley: The influence of repeated interactions and a robot’s attitude on its perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 883.
Supplementary Material
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.
