This study conceptualizes and develops a multi-dimensional Scale of Social Robot Anthropomorphism (SSRA). Through a rigorous scale development procedure that consists of a battery of qualitative (interviews and focus group) and quantitative approaches (online and field studies), four dimensions of social robot anthropomorphism are identified, namely, human-like appearance, social intelligence, emotional capacity, and self-understanding. The scale is found to be valid and reliable by testing its convergent, discriminant, and nomological validities, utilizing data collected from over 1,000 participants. The theoretical and managerial contributions are discussed, and future research recommendations are provided.
AbubshaitAbdulazizWieseEva (2017), “You Look Human, but Act Like a Machine: Agent Appearance and Behavior Modulate Different Aspects of Human–Robot Interaction,” Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1393. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01393
2.
AguinisHermanVillamorIsabelRamaniRavi S. (2020), “MTurk Research: Review and Recommendations,” Journal of Management, 47 (4), 823-837.
3.
AirentiGabriella (2015), “The Cognitive Bases of Anthropomorphism: From Relatedness to Empathy,” International Journal of Social Robotics, 7 (1), 117-27.
4.
AkdimKhaoulaBelancheDanielFlaviánMarta (2021), “Attitudes Toward Service Robots: Analyses of Explicit and Implicit Attitudes Based on Anthropomorphism and Construal Level Theory,” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35 (8), 2816-37.
5.
BartneckChristophReichenbachJulianeVan BreemenAlbert J. J. M. (2004), “In Your Face, Robot! The Influence of a Character’s Embodiment on How Users Perceive its Emotional Expressions,” in Proceedings of the Design and Emotion 2004, Ankara (2004).
6.
BartneckChristophKulićDanaCroftElizabeth A.ZoghbiSusana (2008), “Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots,” International Journal of Social Robotics, 1 (1), 71-81.
7.
BaumgartnerHansWeijtersBert (2019), “Measurement in Marketing,” Foundations and Trends in Marketing, 12 (4), 278-400.
8.
BelancheDanielCasalóLuis V.FlaviánCarlosSchepersJjl Jeroen (2019), “Service Robot Implementation: A Theoretical Framework and Research Agenda,” Service Industries Journal, 40 (3–4), 203-25.
9.
BioccaFrankHarmsChadBurgoonJudee K. (2003), “Toward a More Robust Theory and Measure of Social Presence: Review and Suggested Criteria,” Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12 (5), 456-80.
10.
BlutMarkusWangChengWünderlichNancy V.BrockChristian (2021), “Understanding Anthropomorphism in Service Provision: A Meta-analysis of Physical Robots, Chatbots, and Other AI,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49 (4), 632-58.
11.
BollenKenneth A.TingKwok-fai (2000), “A Tetrad Test for Causal Indicators,” Psychological Methods, 5 (1), 3-22.
12.
CarpinellaColleen M.WymanAlisa B.PerezMichael A.StroessnerSteven J. (2017), “The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS),” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Vienna, Austria (March 06-09 2017).
13.
CenfetelliRonald T.BassellierGenevieve (2009), “Interpretation of Formative Measurement in Information Systems Research,” MIS Quarterly, 33 (4), 689-707.
14.
ChiOscar HengxuanChiChristina G. (2020), “Reminiscing Other People’s Memories: Conceptualizing and Measuring Vicarious Nostalgia Evoked by Heritage Tourism,” Journal of Travel Research, 61 (1), 33-49.
15.
ChiOscar HengxuanGürsoyDoğanChiChristina G. (2020), “Tourists’ Attitudes Toward the Use of Artificially Intelligent (AI) Devices in Tourism Service Delivery: Moderating Role of Service Value Seeking,” Journal of Travel Research, 61 (1), 170-85.
16.
ChiOscar HengxuanDentonGregory A.GürsoyDoğan (2020), “Artificially Intelligent Device Use in Service Delivery: A Systematic Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda,” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29 (7), 757-86.
17.
ChiOscar HengxuanJiaShizhenLiYafangGürsoyDoğan (2021), “Developing a Formative Scale to Measure Consumers’ Trust toward Interaction with Artificially Intelligent (AI) Social Robots in Service Delivery,” Computers in Human Behavior, 118 (7), 106700.
18.
ChurchillGilbert A. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64-73.
19.
CompeauDeborahCorreiaJohn J.ThatcherJason Bennett (2022), “When Constructs Become Obsolete: A Systematic Approach to Evaluating and Updating Constructs for Information Systems Research,” Management Information Systems Quarterly, 46 (2), 679-712.
20.
DamianoLuisaDumouchelPaul (2018), “Anthropomorphism in Human–Robot Co-evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 468. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00468
21.
DamonWilliamHartDaniel (1982), “The Development of Self-understanding from Infancy Through Adolescence,” Child Development, 53 (4), 841-864.
22.
DavisonDanielWijnenFrances M.CharisiVasilikiVan Der MeijJanReidsmaDennisEversVanessa (2020), “Words of Encouragement: How Praise Delivered by a Social Robot Changes Children’s Mindset for Learning,” Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 15 (1), 61-76.
23.
DedeoğluBekir BoraBilgihanAnilYeBen HaobinBuonincontriPieraOkumuşFevzi (2018), “The Impact of Servicescape on Hedonic Value and Behavioral Intentions: The Importance of Previous Experience,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 72, 10-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.12.007
24.
DiamantopoulosAdamantiosWinklhoferHeidi (2001), “Index Construction With Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2), 269-77.
25.
EpleyNicholasWaytzAdamCacioppoJohn T. (2007), “On Seeing Human: A Three-factor Theory of Anthropomorphism,” Psychological Review, 114 (4), 864-86.
26.
EysselFriederike AnneHegelFrankHorstmannGernotWagnerClaudia (2010), “Anthropomorphic Inferences from Emotional Nonverbal Cues: A Case Study,” in 19th International Symposium in Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Viareggio, Italy (September 13-15 2010).
27.
FrauneMarlena R. (2020), “Our Robots, Our Team: Robot Anthropomorphism Moderates Group Effects in Human–Robot Teams,” Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1275. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01275
28.
GortonD. A. (1988), “Holistic Health Techniques to Increase Individual Coping and Wellness,” Journal of Holistic Nursing, 6 (1), 25-30.
29.
GrayHeather M.GrayKurtWegnerDaniel M. (2007), “Dimensions of Mind Perception,” Science, 315 (5812), 619.
30.
GuderganSiegfried P.RingleChristian M.WendeSvenWillAlexander (2008), “Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis in PLS Path Modeling,” Journal of Business Research, 61 (12), 1238-1249.
31.
GürsoyDoğanHengxuan ChiOscarLuLuNunkooRobin (2019), “Consumers Acceptance of Artificially Intelligent (AI) Device Use in Service Delivery,” International Journal of Information Management, 49 (5), 157-69.
32.
HaslamNick (2006), “Dehumanization: An Integrative Review,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (3), 252-64.
33.
HaytonJames C.AllenDavid G.ScarpelloVida (2004), “Factor Retention Decisions in Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Tutorial on Parallel Analysis,” Organizational Research Methods, 7 (2), 191-205.
34.
HeerinkM.KröseB. J. A.EversV.WielingaB. J. (2008), “The Influence of Social Presence on Acceptance of a Companion Robot by Older People,” Journal of Physical Agents, 2 (2), 33-40.
35.
HuangMing HuiRustRoland T. (2018), “Artificial Intelligence in Service,” Journal of Service Research, 21 (2), 155-72.
36.
HumphreyNicholas (1976), “The Social Function of Intellect,” in Growing Points in Ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
JarvisCheryl BurkeMacKenzieScott B.PodsakoffPhilip M. (2003), “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 199-218.
38.
JiaJing WenChungNamhoHwangJooyoung (2021), “Assessing the Hotel Service Robot Interaction on Tourists’ Behaviour: The Role of Anthropomorphism,” Industrial Management and Data Systems, 121 (6), 1457-78.
39.
KimJooheeImIl (2023), “Anthropomorphic Response: Understanding Interactions between Humans and Artificial Intelligence Agents,” Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107512. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107512
40.
KimSeo YoungSchmittBernd H.ThalmannNadia Magnenat (2019), “Eliza in the Uncanny Valley: Anthropomorphizing Consumer Robots Increases Their Perceived Warmth but Decreases Liking,” Marketing Letters, 30 (1), 1-12.
41.
KimBoyoungBruceMicalaBrownLeSeanDe VisserEwartPhillipsElizabeth (2020), “A Comprehensive Approach to Validating the Uncanny Valley Using the Anthropomorphic RoBOT (ABOT) Database,” in 2020 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS), Charlottesville, VA, USA (April 24 2020). DOI: 10.1109/SIEDS49339.2020.9106675
42.
KuchenbrandtDietaAnne EysselFriederikeBobingerSimonNeufeldMaria (2013), “When a Robot’s Group Membership Matters,” International Journal of Social Robotics, 5 (3), 409-17.
43.
KühneRinaldoPeterJochen (2023), “Anthropomorphism in Human–Robot Interactions: A Multidimensional Conceptualization,” Communication Theory, 33 (1), 42-52.
44.
LambertLisa SchurerNewmanDaniel A. (2022), “Construct Development and Validation in Three Practical Steps: Recommendations for Reviewers, Editors, and Authors,” Organizational Research Methods, 26 (4), 574-607.
45.
LevillainFlorentZibettiElisabetta (2017), “Behavioral Objects: The Rise of the Evocative Machines,” Journal of Human-robot Interaction, 6 (1), 4.
46.
LiXingeSungYongjun (2021), “Anthropomorphism Brings Us Closer: The Mediating Role of Psychological Distance in User–AI Assistant Interactions,” Computers in Human Behavior, 118 (4), 106680.
47.
LiLinyaoYiLiSongBoShiZhaominWangChongli (2022), “How Human-like Behavior of Service Robot Affects Social Distance: A Mediation Model and Cross-Cultural Comparison,” Behavioral Sciences, 12 (7), 205.
48.
LiengaardBenjamin DybroSharmaPratyush NidhiHultG. Tomas M.Berg JensenMortenSarstedtMarkoHairJoseph F.RingleChristian M. (2020), “Prediction: Coveted, Yet Forsaken? Introducing a Cross‐validated Predictive Ability Test in Partial Least Squares Path Modeling,” Decision Sciences, 52 (2), 362-392.
49.
LinHongxiaHengxuan ChiOscarGürsoyDoğan (2019), “Antecedents of Customers’ Acceptance of Artificially Intelligent Robotic Device Use in Hospitality Services,” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29 (5), 530-49.
50.
LulkaDavid (2008), “Embodying Anthropomorphism: Contextualizing Commonality in the Material Landscape,” Anthrozoos, 21 (2), 181-96.
51.
MacKenzieScott B.PodsakoffPhilip M.PodsakoffNathan P. (2011), “Construct Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research: Integrating New and Existing Techniques,” Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35 (2), 293.
52.
MasatoMori (1970). Bukimi No Tani [The Uncanny Valley]. Energy, 7 (4), 33-35.
53.
QiuHailianLiMinglongShuBoyangBaiBilly (2019), “Enhancing Hospitality Experience With Service Robots: The Mediating Role of Rapport Building,” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29 (3), 247-68.
54.
RibeiroManuel AlectorGürsoyDoğanHengxuan ChiOscar (2021), “Customer Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles in Travel and Tourism,” Journal of Travel Research, 61 (3), 620-36.
55.
RingleChristian M.SarstedtMarkoSinkovicsNoemiSinkovicsRudolf R. (2023), “A Perspective on Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling in Data Articles,” Data in Brief, 48 (1), 109074.
RossiterJohn R. (2002), “The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19 (4), 305-35.
58.
RossiterJohn R. (2011), “Marketing Measurement Revolution,” European Journal of Marketing, 45 (11/12), 1561-88.
59.
RuijtenPeter A. M.HaansAntalHamJaapMiddenCees J. H. (2019), “Perceived Human-likeness of Social Robots: Testing the Rasch Model as a Method for Measuring Anthropomorphism,” International Journal of Social Robotics, 11 (3), 477-94.
60.
SalemMahaEysselFriederike AnneRohlfingKatharina J.KoppStefanJoublinFrank (2013), “To Err is Human(-like): Effects of Robot Gesture on Perceived Anthropomorphism and Likability,” International Journal of Social Robotics, 5 (3), 313-23.
61.
SarstedtMarkoHairJoseph F.CheahJunBeckerJanRingleChristian M. (2019), “How to Specify, Estimate, and Validate Higher-order Constructs in PLS-SEM,” Australasian Marketing Journal, 27 (3), 197-211.
62.
SchömbsSarahKleinJacobeRoeslerEileen (2023), “Feeling With a Robot—The Role of Anthropomorphism by Design and the Tendency to Anthropomorphize in Human-robot Interaction,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 10, 10. DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2023.1149601
63.
ShmueliGalitSarstedtMarkoHairJoseph F.CheahJun-HwaTingHiramVaithilingamSanthaRingleChristian M. (2019), “Predictive Model Assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for Using PLSpredict,” European Journal of Marketing, 53 (11), 2322-47.
64.
SpatolaNicolasChaminadeThierry (2022), “Cognitive Load Increases Anthropomorphism of Humanoid Robot. The Automatic Path of Anthropomorphism,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 167, 102884. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102884
65.
SpatolaNicolasWudarczykOlga A. (2020), “Implicit Attitudes Towards Robots Predict Explicit Attitudes, Semantic Distance Between Robots and Humans, Anthropomorphism, and Prosocial Behavior: From Attitudes to Human–robot Interaction,” International Journal of Social Robotics, 13 (5), 1149-59.
66.
SpatolaNicolasKühnlenzBarbaraChengGordon (2021), “Perception and Evaluation in Human–robot Interaction: The Human–Robot Interaction Evaluation Scale (HRIES)—A Multicomponent Approach of Anthropomorphism,” International Journal of Social Robotics, 13 (7), 1517-39.
67.
TahiroğluDenizTaylorMarjorie (2019), “Anthropomorphism, Social Understanding, and Imaginary Companions,” British Journal of Development Psychology, 37 (2), 284-99.
68.
TajfelHenriTurnerJohn (2000). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press eBooks, 56-65.
69.
TuyenNguyen Tan VietArmaganElibolNakYoung Chong (2020). Learning Bodily Expression of Emotion for Social Robots Through Human Interaction. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 13 (1), 16-30.
70.
Van DoornJennyMendeMartinNobleStephanieHullandJohnOstromAmy L.GrewalDhruvPetersenJ. Andrew (2017), “Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto: Emergence of Automated Social Presence in Organizational Frontlines and Customers’ Service Experiences,” Journal of Service Research, 20 (1), 43-58.
71.
VigliaGiampaoloDolničarSara (2020), “A Review of Experiments in Tourism and Hospitality,” Annals of Tourism Research, 80 (2), 102858.
72.
VinziVincenzo EspositoChinWynne W.HenselerJörgWangHuiwen (2010). Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
73.
WaytzAdamMorewedgeCarey K.EpleyNicholasGeorgeMonteleoneGaoJiaCacioppoJohn T. (2010), “Making Sense by Making Sentient: Effectance Motivation Increases Anthropomorphism,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99 (3), 410-35.
74.
WullenkordRicardaFrauneMarlena R.EysselFriederike AnneŠabanovićSelma (2016), “Getting in Touch: How Imagined, Actual, and Physical Contact Affect Evaluations of Robots,” in Proceeding of the 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), New York, NY, USA (August 26-31 2016).
75.
XuKun (2019), “First Encounter with Robot Alpha: How Individual Differences Interact with Vocal and Kinetic Cues in Users’ Social Responses,” New Media & Society, 21 (11–12), 2522-47.
76.
ZhuDongqingChangYa Ping (2020), “Robot with Humanoid Hands Cooks Food Better?,” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32 (3), 1367-83.
77.
ZłotowskiJakubStrasserEwaldBartneckChristoph (2014), “Dimensions of Anthropomorphism,” in Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Bielefeld, Germany (March 03-06 2014).
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.
