We investigated the role of humanisation in Visual Perspective-Taking (VPT) by testing whether and how agent’s human-likeness and attractiveness (“hedonic quality”) interact with social cues (action and eye gaze) in influencing the participants’ disposition to embody another’s perspective. In a VPT task, participants viewed scenes displaying an actor (human or robotic) grasping, gazing (or both) a target object, or adopting a still posture, and were required to judge the left/right location of the target, without receiving any instruction on the perspective to be assumed. Across two studies, we selected human and robotic agents to use as actors in the VPT task. Results consistently demonstrated that participants could be effectively clustered by a data-driven method into two perspective-taking styles, depending on the presence of a systematic tendency to locate the target object in the VPT scenarios from own (egocentric) or the actor’s (altercentric) point of view. The human versus nonhuman nature of the agent seemed able to affect the participants’ egocentric or altercentric tendency whereas both the agent’s hedonic quality and social cues were not able to influence this propensity. Identifying the factors influencing altercentrism during human–robot interactions can be essential for developing artificial agents favouring user’s acceptance and willingness to interact. In this respect, considering differences among individuals in their propensity to take another’s point of view may be of central importance. Clustering approaches can represent a useful means to capture interindividual differences in this central aspect of human social cognition.
BarracloughN. E.KeithR. H.XiaoD.OramM. W.PerrettD. I. (2009). Visual adaptation to goal-directed hand actions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(9), 1806–1820.
3.
BayetL.QuinnP. C.TanakaJ. W.LeeK.GentazÉ.PascalisO. (2015). Face gender influences the looking preference for smiling expressions in 3.5-month-old human infants. PLOS ONE, 10(6), Article e0129812. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129812
4.
BerkovitsI.HancockG. R.NevittJ. (2000). Bootstrap resampling approaches for repeated measure designs: Relative robustness to sphericity and normality violations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 877–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970961
5.
BlancaM.AlarconR.ArnauJ.BonoR.BendayanR. (2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option?Psicothema, 29(4), 552–557.
6.
BleiD.LaffertyJ. (2009). Topic models. In SrivastavaA.SahamiM. (Eds.), Text mining: Classification, clustering, and applications (pp. 71–94). Taylor & Francis Group.
7.
BossiF.WillemseC.CavazzaJ.MarchesiS.MurinoV.WykowskaA. (2020). The human brain reveals resting state activity patterns that are predictive of biases in attitudes toward robots. Science Robototics, 5(46), eabb6652. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abb6652
8.
BråtenS. (2007). Altercentric infants and adults: On the origins and manifestations of participant perception of others’ acts and utterances. In BråtenS. (Ed.), On being moved: From mirror neurons to empathy (pp. 111–137). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
9.
BukowskiH.SamsonD. (2017). New insights into the inter-individual variability in perspective taking. Vision, 1(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision1010008
10.
BukowskiH.SamsonD. (2021). Automatic imitation is reduced in narcissists but only in egocentric perspective-takers. Acta Psychologica, 213, 103235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103235
11.
CharradM.GhazzaliN.BoiteauV.NiknafsA. (2014). NbClust package for determining the best number of clusters. R package version 2.0.3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=NbClust
12.
ConsonM.MazzarellaE.EspositoD.GrossiD.MarinoN.MassagliA.FrolliA. (2015). “Put myself into your place”: Embodied simulation and perspective taking in autism spectrum disorders. Autism Research, 8(4), 454–466. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1460
13.
ConsonM.PolitoF.Di RosaA.TrojanoL.CordascoG.EspositoA.TuriM. (2020). “Not only faces”: Specialized visual representation of human hands revealed by adaptation. Royal Society Open Science, 7(12), 200948. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200948
14.
ConsonM.SalzanoS.FrolliA.MazzarellaE. (2017). The peer’s point of view: Observing a peer performing an action enhances third-person perspective in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 56, 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.02.001
15.
CrossE. S.RamseyR. (2021). Mind meets machine: Towards a cognitive science of human-machine interactions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(3), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.009
16.
EkmanP.FriesenW. V. (1976). Pictures of facial affect. Consulting Psychologists Press.
17.
ErleT. M.TopolinskiS. (2017). The grounded nature of psychological perspective-taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(5), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000081
18.
EspositoA.AmoreseT.CucinielloM.EspositoA. M.TronconeA.TorresM. I.SchlöglS.CordascoG. (2019). Seniors’ acceptance of virtual humanoid agents. In LeoneA.CaroppoA.RescioG.DiracoG.SicilianoP. (Eds.), Ambient assisted living. ForItAAL 2018. Lecture notes in electrical engineering, vol. 544. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05921-7_35
19.
EspositoA.CucinielloM.AmoreseT.VinciarelliA.CordascoG. (2024). Humanoid and android robots in the imaginary of adolescents, young adults and seniors. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 15, 2699–2718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-022-03806-z
20.
EspositoA.SchlöglS.AmoreseT.EspositoA. M.TorresM. I.MasucciF.CordascoG. (2018). Seniors’ sensing of agent’s personality from facial expressions. In MiesenbergerK.KouroupetroglouG. (Eds.), Proceedings of ICCHP 2018, LNCS (pp. 10897438–10897442). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94274-2_63
21.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). g*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
22.
FergusonH. J.BrunsdonV.BradfordE. (2018). Age of avatar modulates the altercentric bias in a visual perspective-taking task: ERP and behavioral evidence. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(6), 1298–1319. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-018-0641-1
23.
FisherR. A. (1936). The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics, 7, 179–188.
24.
FlavellJ. H.EverettB. A.CroftK.FlavellE. R. (1981). Young children’s knowledge about visual perception: Further evidence for the level 1-level 2 distinction. Developmental Psychology, 17, 99–103.
25.
FurlanettoT.CavalloA.ManeraV.TverskyB.BecchioC. (2013). Through your eyes: Incongruence of gaze and action increases spontaneous perspective taking. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12(7), Article 455. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00455
26.
HartiganJ. A. (1975). Clustering algorithms. John Wiley & Sons.
HenschelA.HortensiusR.CrossE. S. (2020). Social cognition in the age of human-robot interaction. Trends in Neurosciences, 43(6), 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2020.03.013
29.
HesterN. (2019). Perceived negative emotion in neutral faces: Gender-dependent effects on attractiveness and threat. Emotion, 19(8), 1490–1494. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000525
30.
HobsonR. P.LeeA. (1999). Imitation and identification in autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 649–659.
31.
HubertyC. J. (1994). Applied discriminant analysis. Wiley-Interscience.
32.
IngelfingerJ. A.MostellerF.ThibodeauL. A.WareJ. H. (1983). Biostatistics in clinical medicine. Macmillan Publishing Company.
33.
JobsonJ. D. (1992). Applied multivariate data analysis. Volume II: Categorical and multivariate methods. Springer-Verlag.
34.
KampisD.SouthgateV. (2020). Altercentric cognition: How others influence our cognitive processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(11), 945–959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.09.003
35.
KesslerK.ThomsonL. A. (2010). The embodied nature of spatial perspective taking: Embodied transformation versus sensorimotor interference. Cognition, 114(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.015
36.
KesslerK.WangH. (2012). Spatial perspective taking is an embodied process, but not for everyone in the same way: Differences predicted by sex and social skills score. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 12(2–3), 133–158.
37.
LangeK.KühnS.FilevichE. (2015). “Just another tool for online studies” (JATOS): An easy solution for setup and management of web servers supporting online studies. PLOS ONE, 10(6), Article e0130834.
38.
LoughnanS.HaslamN. (2007). Animals and androids: Implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans. Psychological Science, 18(2), 116–121.
39.
LovakovA.AgadullinaE. R. (2021). Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2752
40.
LukošiūnaitėI.KovácsÁ. M.SebanzN. (2024). The influence of another’s actions and presence on perspective taking. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 4971. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55200-8
41.
MarchesiS.GhiglinoD.CiardoF.Perez-OsorioJ.BaykaraE.WykowskaA. (2019). Do we adopt the intentional stance toward humanoid robots?Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00450
42.
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 314–324.
43.
MazzarellaE.HamiltonA.TrojanoL.MastromauroB.ConsonM. (2012). Observation of another’s action but not eye gaze triggers allocentric visual perspective. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(12), 2447–2460. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.697905
44.
MazzarellaE.RamseyR.ConsonM.HamiltonA. (2013). Brain systems for visual perspective taking and action perception. Social Neuroscience, 8(3), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2012.761160
45.
MichelonP.ZacksJ. M. (2006). Two kinds of visual perspective taking. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 327–337.
46.
Nisha & KaurP. J. (2015). Cluster quality based performance evaluation of hierarchical clustering method. In 2015 1st International Conference on Next Generation Computing Technologies [NGCT] (pp. 649–653). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/NGCT.2015.7375201
47.
O’ConnorR. J.PlantJ. L.RiggsK. J. (2023). Autistic adults show similar performance and sensitivity to social cues on a visual perspective taking task as non-autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53, 1781–1794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05480-8
48.
PandeyA. K.GelinR. (2018). A mass-produced sociable humanoid robot: Pepper: The first machine of its kind. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 25, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2018.2833157
49.
PiagetJ.InhelderB. (1967). The child’s conception of space. Norton.
50.
RousseeuwP. (1987). Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20, 53–65.
51.
SamuelS.ColeG. G.EacottM. J. (2023). It’s not you, tt’s me: A review of individual differences in visuospatial perspective taking. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(2), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221094545
52.
SchmiderE.ZieglerM.DanayE.BeyerL.BühnerM. (2010). Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption. Methodology, 6(4), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000016
53.
SimpsonA. J.ToddA. R. (2017). Intergroup visual perspective-taking: Shared group membership impairs self-perspective inhibition but may facilitate perspective calculation. Cognition, 166, 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.003
54.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). Harper Collins.
55.
ToddA. R.HankoK.GalinskyA. D.MussweilerT. (2011). When focusing on differences leads to similar perspectives. Psychological Science, 22(1), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392929
von Salm-HoogstraetenS. V.MüsselerJ. (2021). Human cognition in interaction with robots: Taking the robot’s perspective into account. Human Factors, 63(8), 1396–1407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820933764
58.
WangX.XuY. (2019). An improved index for clustering validation based on Silhouette index and Calinski-Harabasz index. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 569, 052024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/569/5/052024
59.
WardJ. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301), 236–244.
60.
WieseE.MettaG.WykowskaA. (2017). Robots as intentional agents: Using neuroscientific methods to make robots appear more social. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1663. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663
YeT.FurumiF.Catarino daSilva D.HamiltonA. (2021). Taking the perspectives of many people: Humanization matters. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(3), 888–897. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01850-4
63.
YeT.MinatoT.SakaiK.SumiokaH.HamiltonA.IshiguroH. (2023). Human-like interactions prompt people to take a robot’s perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1190620. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190620
64.
ZhaoX.CusimanoC.MalleB. F. (2016). Do people spontaneously take a robot’s visual perspective? In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction [HRI] (pp. 335–342). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
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.
