• 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
  • šŸ‡«šŸ‡·
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent

October 27, 2021

šŸ”¬ Research summary by Connor Wright, our Partnerships Manager.

[Original paper by Ā 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 ā€œhave a discussion with this robot about basic health habits.ā€ (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 ā€œrealā€ 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

šŸ” SEARCH

Spotlight

ALL IN Conference 2025: Four Key Takeaways from Montreal

Beyond Dependency: The Hidden Risk of Social Comparison in Chatbot Companionship

AI Policy Corner: Restriction vs. Regulation: Comparing State Approaches to AI Mental Health Legislation

Beyond Consultation: Building Inclusive AI Governance for Canada’s Democratic Future

AI Policy Corner: U.S. Executive Order on Advancing AI Education for American Youth

related posts

  • Collective Action on Artificial Intelligence: A Primer and Review

    Collective Action on Artificial Intelligence: A Primer and Review

  • The Brussels Effect and AI: How EU Regulation will Impact the Global AI Market

    The Brussels Effect and AI: How EU Regulation will Impact the Global AI Market

  • Technological trajectories as an outcome of the structure-agency interplay at the national level: In...

    Technological trajectories as an outcome of the structure-agency interplay at the national level: In...

  • Research Summary: Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples

    Research Summary: Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples

  • Facial Recognition - Can It Evolve From A ā€œSource of Biasā€ to A ā€œTool Against Biasā€

    Facial Recognition - Can It Evolve From A ā€œSource of Biasā€ to A ā€œTool Against Biasā€

  • How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things

    How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things

  • Bridging the Gap Between AI and the Public (TEDxYouth@GandyStreet)

    Bridging the Gap Between AI and the Public (TEDxYouth@GandyStreet)

  • Towards User-Centered Metrics for Trustworthy AI in Immersive Cyberspace

    Towards User-Centered Metrics for Trustworthy AI in Immersive Cyberspace

  • Not Quite ā€˜Ask a Librarian’: AI on the Nature, Value, and Future of LIS

    Not Quite ā€˜Ask a Librarian’: AI on the Nature, Value, and Future of LIS

  • Towards Community-Driven Generative AI

    Towards Community-Driven Generative AI

Partners

  • Ā 
    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

  • Ā© 2025 MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE.
  • 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.