• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Core Principles of Responsible AI
    • Accountability
    • Fairness
    • Privacy
    • Safety and Security
    • Sustainability
    • Transparency
  • Special Topics
    • AI in Industry
    • Ethical Implications
    • Human-Centered Design
    • Regulatory Landscape
    • Technical Methods
  • Living Dictionary
  • State of AI Ethics
  • AI Ethics Brief
  • 🇫🇷
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent

October 27, 2021

🔬 Research summary by Connor Wright, our Partnerships Manager.

[Original paper by  Sara Kiesler, Aaron Powers, Susan R. Fussell, and Cristen Torrey]


Overview: Would you be more comfortable disclosing personal health information to a physical robot or a chatbot? In this study, anthropomorphism may be seen as the way to interact with humans, but most definitely not in acquiring personal information.


Introduction

Would you be more comfortable disclosing personal health information to a physical robot or a chatbot? Explored in this study is whether a humanlike robot solicits stronger anthropomorphic interactions than just a chatbot. With both physical presence and physical distance measured, the anthropomorphised robot wins the interaction race hands-down. However, when it comes to acquiring the medical information, the anthropomorphic strategy leaves much to be desired.

Key Insights

Setting the scene

The main actors of the study were a physically embodied robot, the same robot projected onto a screen, a software agent (like a chatbot) on a computer next to the participant and a software agent projected onto a big screen farther away. From there, four scenarios were set out (p.g. 172):

  1. The participant interacts with a physically present and embodied robot.
  2. The participant communicates with the same robot, but it is projected on a big screen.
  3. The participant engages with a software agent on a nearby laptop.
  4. The participant converses with the software agent on the further away  big screen.

Two hypotheses were proposed

  1. The participants will interact and thus anthropomorphise the physically embodied robot more so than the software agent. However, they won’t disclose as much personal information to the embodied agent.
  2. The participants will interact and thus anthropomorphise a software agent on a computer more than a robot projected onto a big screen.

The instructions for the discussion mentioned how the goal was to “have a discussion with this robot about basic health habits.” (p.g. 173). Once carried out, the first conclusion drawn was on the importance of embodiment.

Robot embodiment is key

The participants interacted with the embodied robot a lot more than the social agent. Not only that, but it ranked top of all the robot trait ratings (such as trustworthiness and competency, see the table on p.g. 178).

In addition, the software agent was not seen as a “real” robot. The participants, of course, had their own preconceptions about how the robot was to look, with some being left disappointed when faced with a software agent.

The embodied agent vs. the software agent

Alongside the superior level of interaction, the first hypothesis was confirmed by how the participants did disclose less to the physical robot than the software agent. Instead, the software agent was viewed more as an administrative process that simply required personal information, which participants were more comfortable giving. While the software agent may have suffered in lacking human interaction, this proved beneficial in acquiring the desired medical information.

The distance factor

About the physical distance between the participant, the physical robot and the software agent did not differ. The variation in engagement time between having the robot and software agent projected and not projected was negligible. Hence, the study’s second hypothesis was proved false.

Between the lines

While the physical robot was more anthropomorphised, it was still not seen as a fully human interlocutor. Participants mentioned how the robot, at times, wasn’t flexible and interruptible enough for an entirely natural conversation to flow. Furthermore, the higher level of anthropomorphisation did not immediately lead to a sufficient level of trust to disclose personal health information. Hence, while anthropomorphisation does generate increased human interaction, it does not naturally follow that we trust the technology.

Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

🔍 SEARCH

Spotlight

AI Policy Corner: AI for Good Summit 2025

AI Policy Corner: Japan’s AI Promotion Act

AI Policy Corner: Texas and New York: Comparing U.S. State-Level AI Laws

What is Sovereign Artificial Intelligence?

AI Policy Corner: The Kenya National AI Strategy

related posts

  • The State of Artificial Intelligence in the Pacific Islands

    The State of Artificial Intelligence in the Pacific Islands

  • The path toward equal performance in medical machine learning

    The path toward equal performance in medical machine learning

  • Research summary: Maximizing Privacy and Effectiveness in COVID-19 Apps

    Research summary: Maximizing Privacy and Effectiveness in COVID-19 Apps

  • Research summary: Towards the Systematic Reporting of the Energy and Carbon Footprints of Machine Le...

    Research summary: Towards the Systematic Reporting of the Energy and Carbon Footprints of Machine Le...

  • Experts Doubt Ethical AI Design Will Be Broadly Adopted as the Norm Within the Next Decade

    Experts Doubt Ethical AI Design Will Be Broadly Adopted as the Norm Within the Next Decade

  • The Limits of Global Inclusion in AI Development (Research Summary)

    The Limits of Global Inclusion in AI Development (Research Summary)

  • Who Funds Misinformation? A Systematic Analysis of the Ad-related Profit Routines of Fake News sites

    Who Funds Misinformation? A Systematic Analysis of the Ad-related Profit Routines of Fake News sites

  • In AI We Trust: Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Reliability

    In AI We Trust: Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Reliability

  • NATO Artificial Intelligence Strategy

    NATO Artificial Intelligence Strategy

  • Human-centred mechanism design with Democratic AI

    Human-centred mechanism design with Democratic AI

Partners

  •  
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer

Categories


• Blog
• Research Summaries
• Columns
• Core Principles of Responsible AI
• Special Topics

Signature Content


• The State Of AI Ethics

• The Living Dictionary

• The AI Ethics Brief

Learn More


• About

• Open Access Policy

• Contributions Policy

• Editorial Stance on AI Tools

• Press

• Donate

• Contact

The AI Ethics Brief (bi-weekly newsletter)

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.


Archive

  • © MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE. All rights reserved 2024.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.