Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts
Detailed Answer
Thorough responses based on abstracts and some paper content
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
116 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
74 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
62 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
18 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
74 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
24 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

This robot stinks! Differences between perceived mistreatment of robot and computer partners (1711.00561v1)

Published 1 Nov 2017 in cs.RO

Abstract: Robots (and computers) are increasingly being used in scenarios where they interact socially with people. How people react to these agents is telling about the perceived animacy of such agents. Mistreatment of robots (or computers) by co-workers might provoke such telling reactions. The purpose of this study was to discover if people perceived mistreatment directed towards a robot any differently than toward a computer. This will provide some understanding of how people perceive robots in collaborative social settings. We conducted a between-subjects study with 80 participants. Participants worked cooperatively with either a robot or a computer which acted as the "recorder" for the group. A confederate either acted aggressively or neutrally towards the "recorder." We hypothesized that people would not socially accept mistreatment towards an agent that they felt was intelligent and similar to themselves; that participants would perceive the robot as more similar in appearance and emotional capability to themselves than a computer; and would observe more mistreatment. The final results supported our hypothesis; the participants observed mistreatment in the robot, but not the computer. Participants felt significantly more sympathetic towards the robot and also believed that it was much more emotionally capable.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. Zachary Carlson (1 paper)
  2. Louise Lemmon (1 paper)
  3. MacCallister Higgins (1 paper)
  4. David Frank (5 papers)
  5. David Feil-Seifer (19 papers)
Citations (6)