The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which appearance, task, and reliability of a robot is susceptible to stereotypic thinking. Stereotypes can influence the types of causal attributions that people make about the performance of others. Just as causal attributions may affect an individual’s perception of other people, it may similarly affect perceptions of technology. Stereotypes can also influence perceived capabilities of others. In situations where stereotypes are activated, an individual’s perceived capabilities are typically diminished. The tendency to adjust perceptions of capabilities of others may translate into levels of trust placed in the individual’s abilities. A factorial survey using video vignettes will be utilized to assess young and older adults’ attitudes toward a robot’s behavior and appearance. We hypothesize that a robot’s older appearance will yield lower levels of trust, more dispositional attributions, and lower perceptions of capabilities while high reliability should positively impact trust.
AshmoreR. D.Del BocaF. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior. Edited by HamiltonD. L., 1–35. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
Blanchard-FieldsF. (1994). Age differences in causal attributions from an adult developmental perspective. Journal of Gerontology, 49, 43-51. doi:10.1093/geronj/49.2.P43
4.
Blanchard-FieldsF. (1996). Causal attributions across the adult life span: The influence of social schemas, life context, and domain specificity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10,137-146.
5.
Blanchard-FieldsF.ChenY.SchockeM.HertzogC. (1998). Evidence for content-specificity of causal attributions across the adult life span. Aging, Neuropsychology, & Cognition, 5,241-263.
6.
Blanchard-FieldsF.HertzogC.HorhotaM. (2012). Violate my beliefs? Then you’re to blame! Belief content as an explanation for causal attribution biases. Psychology and Aging, 27, 324-337. doi:10.1037/a0024423
7.
BruleR.DotschR.BijlstraG.WigboldusD. J.HaselagerP. (2014). Do robot performance and behavioral style affect human trust?: A multi-method approach. International Journal of Social Robotics, doi:10.1007/s12369-014-0231-5
8.
CzajaS. J.CharnessN.FiskA. D.HertzogC.NairS. N.RogersW. A.SharitJ. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21, 333-352. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333
9.
DavisN. C.FriedrichD. (2010). Age stereotypes in middle-aged through old-old adults. The International Journal Of Aging & Human Development, 70(3), 199-212. doi:10.2190/AG.70.3.b
10.
DuffyB. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 177-190.
11.
FiskeS.TaylorS. (1991). Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
GoetzJ.KieslerS.PowersA. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Vol., IXX, 55-60
13.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. C.de VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517-527. doi:10.1177/0018720811417254
14.
HummertM. L.GarstkaT. A.ShanerJ. L. (1997). Stereotyping of older adults: The role of target facial cues and perceiver characteristics. Psychology and Aging, 12, 107-114.
15.
KiteM. E.StockdaleG. D.WhitleyB. J.JohnsonB. T. (2005). Attitudes toward younger and older adults: An updated meta-analytic review. Journal Of Social Issues, 61(2), 241-266. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00404.x
16.
KrullD. S.EriksonD. J. (1995). Judging situations: On the effortful process of taking dispositional information into account. Social Cognition, 13, 417-438.
17.
KuchenbrandtD.HäringM.EichbergJ.EysselF.AndréE. (2014). Keep an eye on the task! How gender typicality of tasks influence human–robot interactions. International Journal Of Social Robotics, 6(3), 417-427. doi:10.1007/s12369-014-0244-0
18.
LeeJ. (2008). Review of a pivotal human factors article: “Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse.”Human Factors, 50(3), 404-410.
19.
LineweaverT. T.HertzogC. (1998). Adults’ efficacy and control beliefs regarding memory and aging: Separating general from personal beliefs. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 5, 264-296.
20.
MaesP. (1994). Agents that reduce work and information overload. Communications of the ACM, 37, 30–40.
21.
MerrittS.M.IlgenD.R. (2008). Not all trust is created equal: dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Human Factors, 50:194-210. doi:10.1518/001872008X288574
22.
MorayN.HiskesD.LeeJ.MuirB. M. (1995) Trust and human intervention in automated systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
23.
MosierK. L.SkitkaL. J. (1996). Human decision makers and automated decision aids: Made for each other?. In ParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 201-220). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Erlbaum.
24.
MuirB. M. (1987). Trust between human and machines, and the design of decision aids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 527–539.
25.
MuirB. M.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation: Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39, 429–460.
26.
Muller-JohnsonKTogliaM.P.SweeneyC.D.CeciS.J. (2007) The perceived credibility of older adults as witnesses and its relation to ageism. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 355-375.
27.
NassC.LeeK. M. (2001). Does computer-generated speech manifest personality? Experimental test of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistence-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 171–181.
28.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81-103.
29.
NassC.MoonY.GreenN. (1997). Are machines gender neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 864-876.
30.
OosterhofN.N.TodorovA. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 11087–11092.
31.
PakR.FinkN.PriceM.BassB.SturreL. (2012). Decision support aids with anthropomorphic characteristics influence trust and performance in younger and older adults. Ergonomics, 55(9), 1059-1072.
32.
PakR.McLaughlinA.BassB. (2014). A multi-level analysis of the effects of age and gender stereotypes on trust in anthropomorphic technology by younger and older adults. Ergonomics, 57, 1277-1289. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.928750
33.
ParasuramanR.MillerC. (2004). “Trust and Etiquette in High-Criticality Automated Systems”. In MillerC. (Guest Ed.), special section on “Human-Computer Etiquette”. Communications of the ACM. 47, April. 51-55.
34.
ParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 201–220). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
35.
RossiP. H.AndersonA. B. (1982). The Factorial Survey Approach: An Introduction. In RossiP. H.NockS. L. (Eds.), Measuring Social Judgments. The Factorial Survey Approach (pp. 15–67). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
36.
ShaeferK. E.SandersT. L.YordonR. E.BillingsD. R.HancockP. A. (2012). Classification of robot form: Factors predicting perceived trustworthiness. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56: 1548. doi: 10.1177/1071181312561308
37.
SinghI. L.MolloyR.ParasuramanR. (1993). Automation-induced “complacency”: Development of a complacency-potential scale. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(2), 111-122.
