Previous research has shown that when people read vignettes about the infliction of harm upon an entity appearing to have no more than a liminal mind, their attributions of mind to that entity increased. Currently, we investigated if the presence of a facial wound enhanced the perception of mental capacities (experience and agency) in response to images of robotic and human-like avatars, compared with unharmed avatars. The results revealed that harmed versions of both robotic and human-like avatars were imbued with mind to a higher degree, irrespective of the baseline level of mind attributed to their unharmed counterparts. Perceptions of capacity for pain mediated attributions of experience, while both pain and empathy mediated attributions of abilities linked to agency. The findings suggest that harm, even when it appears to have been inflicted unintentionally, may augment mind perception for robotic as well as for nearly human entities, at least as long as it is perceived to elicit pain.
BalasB.PacellaJ. (2017).
Trustworthiness perception is disrupted in artificial faces.Computers in Human Behavior,
77, 240–248.
2.
BarrettJ. L.KeilF. C. (1996).
Conceptualizing a nonnatural entity: Anthropomorphism in God concepts.Cognitive Psychology,
31, 219–247.
3.
BartneckC.YogeeswaranK.SerQ. M.WoodwardG.SparrowR.WangS.EysselF. (2018). Robots and racism. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 196–204).
New York, NY:
ACM.
4.
BastianB.HaslamN. (2011).
Experiencing dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional effects of everyday dehumanization.Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
33, 295–303.
5.
BatsonC. D. (2008). These things called empathy. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
DavisM. H. (1980).
A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology,
10, 85.
8.
EpleyN.WaytzA.CacioppoJ. T. (2007).
On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism.Psychological Review,
114, 864–886.
9.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
10.
GalleseV. (2003).
The roots of empathy: The shared manifold hypothesis and the neural basis of intersubjectivity.Psychopathology,
36, 171–180.
11.
GoetzJ. L.KeltnerD.Simon-ThomasE. (2010).
Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review.Psychological Bulletin,
136, 351–374.
12.
GongL. (2008).
How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations.Computers in Human Behavior,
24, 1494–1509.
13.
GoslingS. D.KwanV. S.JohnO. P. (2003).
A dog’s got personality: A cross-species comparative approach to personality judgments in dogs and humans.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85, 1161–1169.
14.
GrayH. M.GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2007).
Dimensions of mind perception.Science,
315, 619.
15.
GrayK.ScheinC.WardA. F. (2014).
The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
143, 1600–1615.
16.
GrayK.KnobeJ.SheskinM.BloomP.BarrettL. F. (2011).
More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
101, 1207–1220.
17.
GrayK.WaytzA.YoungL. (2012).
The moral dyad: A fundamental template unifying moral judgment.Psychological Inquiry,
23, 206–215.
18.
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2009).
Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
96, 505–520.
19.
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2012).
Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley.Cognition,
125, 125–130.
20.
GrayK.YoungL.WaytzA. (2012).
Mind perception is the essence of morality.Psychological Inquiry,
23, 101–124.
21.
GunkelD. J. (2012). The machine question: Critical perspectives on AI, robots, and ethics.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
22.
GutsellJ. N.InzlichtM. (2012).
Intergroup differences in the sharing of emotive states: Neural evidence of an empathy gap.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
7, 596–603.
23.
HalpernJ.WeinsteinH. M. (2004).
Rehumanizing the other: Empathy and reconciliation.Human Rights Quarterly,
26, 561–583.
24.
HaslamN. (2006).
Dehumanization: An integrative review.Personality and Social Psychology Review,
10, 252–264.
25.
HayesA. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
26.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.
New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
27.
HeflickN. A.GoldenbergJ. L. (2009).
Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
45, 598–601.
28.
KaranaE. (2012).
Characterization of ‘natural’ and ‘high-quality’ materials to improve perception of bio-plastics.Journal of Cleaner Production,
37, 316–325.
29.
KätsyriJ.FörgerK.MäkäräinenM.TakalaT. (2015).
A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: Support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness. Frontiers in Psychology,
6, 390. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00390
30.
KhamitovM.RotmanJ. D.PiazzaJ. (2015).
Perceiving the agency of harmful agents: A test of dehumanization versus moral typecasting accounts.Cognition,
146, 33–47.
31.
LooserC. E.WheatleyT. (2010).
The tipping point of animacy: How, when, and where we perceive life in a face.Psychological Science,
21, 1854–1862.
32.
LoughnanS.HaslamN.MurnaneT.VaesJ.ReynoldsC.SuitnerC. (2010).
Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others. European Journal of Social Psychology,
40, 709–717.
33.
LoughnanS.PinaA.VasquezE. A.PuviaE. (2013).
Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering.Psychology of Women Quarterly,
37, 455–461.
34.
MurrowG. B.MurrowR. (2015).
A hypothetical neurological association between dehumanization and human rights abuses.Journal of Law and the Biosciences,
2, 336–364.
35.
ParkinsonB.MansteadA. S. R. (1993).
Making sense of emotion in stories and social life.Cognition and Emotion,
7, 295–323.
36.
PrgudaE.NeumannD. L. (2014).
Inter-human and animal-directed empathy: A test for evolutionary biases in empathetic responding.Behavioral Processes,
108, 80–86.
Rosenthal-von der PüttenA. M.KrämerN. C.HoffmannL.SobierajS.EimlerS. C. (2013).
An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot.International Journal of Social Robotics,
5, 17–34.
39.
SingerT.LammC. (2009).
The social neuroscience of empathy.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1156, 81–96.
40.
SytsmaJ.MacheryE. (2012).
The two sources of moral standing.Review of Philosophy and Psychology,
3, 303–324.
41.
TanibeT.HashimotoT.KarasawaK. (2017).
We perceive a mind in a robot when we help it.PLoS One,
12, e0180952.
42.
TsankovaE.KappasA. (2016).
Facial skin smoothness as an indicator of perceived trustworthiness and related traits.Perception,
45, 400–408. doi: 10.1177/0301006615616748
43.
WardA. F.OlsenA. S.WegnerD. M. (2013).
The harm-made mind observing victimization augments attribution of minds to vegetative patients, robots, and the dead.Psychological Science,
24, 1437–1445.
44.
WaytzA.EpleyN.CacioppoJ. T. (2010).
Social cognition unbound: Insights into anthropomorphism and dehumanization.Current Directions in Psychological Science,
19, 58–62.
45.
WeismanK.DweckC. S.MarkmanE. M. (2017).
Rethinking people’s conceptions of mental life.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
114, 11374–11379.
46.
WestburyH. R.NeumannD. L. (2008).
Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances.Biological Psychology,
78, 66–74.
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.
