See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351670755

Machines Like Us and People Like You: Toward Human–Robot Shared Experience

Article  in  Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · May 2021

DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2021.29216.aga

CITATIONS READS
0 19

15 authors, including:

Andrea Gaggioli Alice Chirico

Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
400 PUBLICATIONS   7,255 CITATIONS    90 PUBLICATIONS   900 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mario A. Maggioni Clelia Malighetti

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
79 PUBLICATIONS   1,217 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   57 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Promoting Education of Scientific and Technological Societal Issues Through Sublime (PROMETHEUS) View project

Virtual Reality and Stress Inoculation Training View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrea Gaggioli on 21 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING
Volume 24, Number 5, 2021 CLOSING EDITORIAL
ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2021.29216.aga

Machines Like Us and People Like You:

Toward Human–Robot Shared Experience

Andrea Gaggioli, PhD,1–4 Alice Chirico, PhD,1 Daniele Di Lernia, PhD,4 Mario A. Maggioni, PhD,5–7
Clelia Malighetti, MSc,4 Federico Manzi, PhD,2,8 Antonella Marchetti, PhD,2,4,8 Davide Massaro, PhD,2,8
Francesco Rea, PhD,9 Domenico Rossignoli, PhD,5–7 Giulio Sandini, Prof,9 Daniela Villani, PhD,2
Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, MBA, BCB, BCN,10,11 Giuseppe Riva, PhD,2–4 and Alessandra Sciutti, PhD12

Abstract

In the past years, the field of collaborative robots has been developing fast, with applications ranging from
health care to search and rescue, construction, entertainment, sports, and many others. However, current social
robotics is still far from the general abilities we expect in a robot collaborator. This limitation is more evident
when robots are faced with real-life contexts and activities occurring over long periods. In this article, we argue
that human–robot collaboration is more than just being able to work side by side on complementary tasks:
collaboration is a complex relational process that entails mutual understanding and reciprocal adaptation.
Drawing on this assumption, we propose to shift the focus from ‘‘human–robot interaction’’ to ‘‘human–robot
shared experience.’’ We hold that for enabling the emergence of such shared experiential space between
humans and robots, constructs such as coadaptation, intersubjectivity, individual differences, and identity
should become the central focus of modeling. Finally, we suggest that this shift in perspective would imply
changing current mainstream design approaches, which are mainly focused on functional aspects of the human–
robot interaction, to the development of architectural frameworks that integrate the enabling dimensions of
social cognition.

Keywords: human–robot interaction, cognitive architecture, intersubjectivity, collaboration, coadaptation

Introduction Charlie, developing new ideas about the world and itself. The
author depicts the phenomenon of coadaptation between

I n the novel ‘‘Machines like Me’’ by Ian McEwan, the

new generation android named Adam becomes part of
Charlie’s life. An intense relationship full of contradictions
typical of human relationships is established between the two
main protagonists and Miranda, the third vertex in the love
triangle: Adam profoundly influences Charlie’s life. At the
same time, Adam set up by Charlie (and Miranda) with some
initial parameters of personality, living the daily experience
of human relationships, changes his way of interacting with
humans and robots: the two agents, one human and the other
artificial, share different experiences, modifying their way of
experiencing themselves and the world.
This scenario forces us to ask ourselves what we want for
future robotics. Do we desire that robots become passive
prostheses that extend our natural capabilities under our di-
rect control, or do we wish to develop artificial entities that
are capable of autonomy, mutual understanding, empathy,
and ultimately relational skills?

1
ExperienceLab, and 2Department of Psychology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy.
3
ATN-P Lab, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy.
4
Humane Technology Lab., and 5HuroLab, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy.
6
DISEIS, Department of International Economics, Institutions and Development, Universitá Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy.
7
CSCC, Cognitive Science and Communication Research Center, Universitá Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy.
8
UniToM, Research Unit on Theory of Mind, Department of Psychology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy.
9
Robotics, Brain and Cognitive Sciences (RBCS) Unit, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy.
10
Virtual Reality Medical Center, La Jolla, California, USA.
11
Virtual Reality Medical Institute, Brussels, Belgium.
12
Cognitive Architecture for Collaborative Technologies (CONTACT) Unit, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy.

357
358
In this article, we will argue that the second stance is
necessary if we are to build robots that can actively collab-
orate with us, rather than just passively work next to us. Our
main proposition is that future robots should progressively
become autonomous collaborative agents, rather than simple
executors of our explicit commands.
Although interest in human–robot interaction and toward
the development of socially competent machines is growing,
this often is limited to very contextualized short-term
instances.
For example, the bartender robot, the guide robot in mu-
seums, the robot helping sales, or the robot receptionist—
where the interaction is by definition cursory and bound to
the specific domain competencies.
A common belief about social robotics is that their
realization is limited by sensors’ performance or hardware/
processing capabilities. Now, substantial advances have been
attained in materials, actuators, sensors, and computational
power. Indeed, this has brought about important improve-
ments in the physical abilities of current robots and to
computational systems able to solve the most complex log-
ical challenges, such as winning against the best players of
chess, Go, and StarCraft, by exploiting recent solutions of
Artificial Intelligence.
However, despite all these advances, current social ro-
botics is still far from the general abilities we expect a robot
collaborator to be equipped with. Effective collaboration in
humans stems from ‘‘growing together,’’ that is, from
building a mutual understanding, which evolves over long
periods through shared experiences.
Consistently, we argue that the introduction of effective
robot collaborators hinges upon the development of an in-
tersubjective space between humans and machines. In par-
ticular, we suggest that this is a requirement for shifting from
a vision of robots as tools, or prostheses, to one where robots
are autonomous agents able to collaborate with us.
Although our approach to developing robots endowed
with social capabilities necessarily stems from a human-
centered epistemology, we contemplate the possibility that
the collaboration of humans and robots may lead to the
emergence of a novel, ‘‘porous’’ epistemology—one con-
taminated by the perspective of the robots themselves.
Building Shared Experiences Between
Humans and Robots: Why and How?
In recent years, the interest in the development of col-
laborative robots has grown significantly, as it has become
evident that even application areas traditionally populated by
robots alone could benefit from the shift toward human–
robot collaboration. This is happening in particular in the
manufacturing industry, where so-called co-bots (an abbre-
viation of co-operative robots) are replacing classical inde-
pendent robots. Applications of collaborative robotics today
extend to health care, caregiving, search and rescue, con-
struction, entertainment, sports, and many others.
However, despite this growing interest in collaborative
robots, it is questionable whether the current robotic plat-
forms fall into the category of collaborative machines. Col-
laboration is a broad concept, which is used to describe a
wide variety of behaviors where more than one agent works
on a single task.1 What we want to propose here is that
GAGGIOLI ET AL.
collaboration cannot be limited to agents working side by
side on complementary tasks, but also involves the estab-
lishment of mutual understanding and coadaptation.
In robotics, coadaptation is generally regarded as the adap-
tation to the skills of the user over time, to potentially trigger a
corresponding adaptation in the human fellow operator.2
However, skills and actions are only a component of the rela-
tional processes involved when two humans collaborate. Si-
milarly, also human–robot interaction should embrace complex
coadaptation, where also the perceptual, affective, and cognitive
dimensions dynamically change and somehow merge in a
mutually transformative shared experience.3 Following this
reasoning, the bidirectionality of the process becomes central—
as the unit of analysis should not be the individual, but the
emerging system represented by the dyad or group.4
However, we do not consider coadaptation as the only key
dimension to developing collaborative robots. Insights in
developmental science, philosophy of the mind, and behav-
ioral economics point to further relevant dimensions in col-
laboration, which include intersubjectivity, individual
differences, and identity.
Intersubjectivity
Studies in lifespan show that preferences and acceptability
of robots in different contexts5 are related to the like-me
nature of social robots, as a function of the developmental
level, concerning physical features and behaviors.6–8
The construction of intersubjectivity is an essential step
for developing more human-like exchanges between humans
and robots. As in humans, repeated interactions build a
common history, through the sharing of subsequent experi-
ences, characterized also by errors, mismatches, and rela-
tional reparations.5,9 This process, in turn, creates a relational
memory and generates expectations about the relational ex-
periences. In envisaging a human–robot relationship, as
imagined by Ian McEwan, it is essential that the first form of
intersubjectivity10 is established, to imagine a sharing of
experiences between humans and machines.
We suggest that the robotic agent represents a cultural and
material artifact, which influences the individual’s psycho-
logical development. Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory11
explained well how culture shapes the lines of development
of our intelligence, through cultural and material artifacts.
Social robots are not exempt from this type of influence, as
they are themselves cultural and material artifacts and,
therefore, can contribute to directing the psychological de-
velopment of the individual in an original and, in many as-
pects, innovative way. In this perspective, the possible
relationship between humans and robots and the emergence
of intersubjectivity becomes a natural outcome.
Another important author in developmental psychology
who helps shed light on the possible coadaptation between
humans and robots is Daniel Stern, one of the foremost ex-
perts in studying the ontogeny of intersubjectivity. Stern10
suggests that intersubjectivity is a need and, at the same time,
a fundamentally human condition: our mind, by its nature, is
constantly seeking other people with whom to resonate and
share experiences.
Two aspects emerge from Stern’s hypothesis: the inter-
personal dynamics that regulate intersubjectivity; and the
motivational elements that drive human beings to enter into a
TOWARD HUMAN–ROBOT SHARED EXPERIENCE
relationship with others. The first concerns how the robot
would position itself in interpersonal terms with the human
in this coadaptation logic.
Research has shown that provisional assimilation of the
robot into a range of intersubjective dynamics is possible, as
highlighted by a recent study by Manzi et al.12 In this study, a
robot that simulates salient social behaviors, such as eye-gaze,
can trigger social expectations in humans, starting from the
first months of life. Consequently, it generates an intersub-
jective space in infants that have not yet experienced the
complexity of relational dynamics. The second issue concerns
the ‘‘fundamental human condition’’ highlighted by Stern.
Indeed, humans are born with a set of capacities that are
modified through experience and learning. Two key ques-
tions arise in this context: What basic equipment should be
implemented into the robot to establish an intersubjective
space with humans? And: Is it only necessary for the robot to
simulate human skills or should the robot be equipped with
some basic skills that can be developed autonomously
through experience and learning?
Again, research has shown that some typically human pro-
cesses, such as trust, are fundamental for building and main-
taining relationships with a robot even in early childhood in
short-term interactions.9 However, studies have shown that
behavior simulation is sufficient to elicit relational engagement
only in short-term interactions with robots,13 whereas it is
desirable to equip the robot with skills that develop autono-
mously through experiences with human partners and the
world in the case of long-term interactions.14,15
Here we come back to Vygotsky, as Marchetti et al.6 un-
derline, who introduced the concept of the Zone of Proximal
Development,11 which represents an intersubjective space be-
tween two subjects of the relationship. In this zone, cognitive
discrepancy of one subject can become a powerful motivator of
coadaptation. From this perspective, one of the most intriguing
challenges for human–robot interactions is the possibility for
robots to provide their human partners with stimuli, inputs, and
interpretations that moderately exceed the partner’s current
capabilities, building bridges to more advanced forms of
shared understanding and capabilities.
Dumouchel and Damiano16 and Damiano and Du-
mouchel17 show that dialogue is the fundamental structure
and basic pattern of how humans act and think. ‘‘The real
anthropomorphism in social robotics derives from basic
cognitive structures and in particular from our tendency to
teleological thought and dialogue as the main form of in-
teraction’’.16 (p110, our translation) This may explain why
humans tend to treat artifacts (and in particular humanoid
artifacts) as interlocutors/partners. This is especially true for
artifacts such as social robots, which should be able (in the
framework of collaborative robots expressed before) to ex-
press and/or perceive emotions; communicate with high-
level verbal dialogue; learn/recognize models of other
agents; establish/maintain social relationships; use natural
cues (gaze, gestures, etc.); exhibit distinctive personality and
character; learn/develop social competencies.18
The recent behavioral economics literature shows that the
decision to trust a partner or to act in a trustworthy way—despite
being incompatible with the rationality assumption of the eco-
nomic theory—is rather common across experimental subjects.
Social robots are very useful in devising experiments able
to explain the emergence of co-operation beyond the tradi-
359
tional approaches of self-regarding preferences (e.g., re-
peated games with the infinite horizon or with a finite
uncertain horizon) or others regarding preferences (e.g.,
equity and/or fairness-based preferences). Some preliminary
experimental results by Maggioni and Rossignoli19 show that
a verbal dialogic interaction with the robotic partner, who
verbally reacts to the actions of the human player, in a simple
repeated co-operation game, reduces the otherwise negative
bias that human subjects show toward robot partners when
compared with human partners.
Individual factors
In the process of coadaptive development of the human–
robot relationship, it is important to consider that different
outcomes are influenced by multiple variables. At the indi-
vidual level, personality has been identified as a core factor
for understanding the nature and quality of this relation-
ship.20 Personality refers to ‘‘those characteristics of the
person that account for consistent patterns of feelings,
thinking, and behaving’’21(p6) and it explains the way people
respond and interact with others in social settings.
In brief, researchers have found a positive impact of hu-
man personality—especially personality traits according to
the Big Five taxonomy22—on various human–robot inter-
action outcomes, including distance and approaching direc-
tion, perceptions, and attitudes toward the robot, emotion
toward the robot, anthropomorphism, and trust.23–26
Furthermore, research has also considered the contribution
of different personality characteristics of robots on the hu-
man–robot relationship. Specifically, several studies have
highlighted that extroverted and socially intelligent robots
were more often preferred in terms of acceptableness,
trustworthiness, and enjoyableness.27–29 Finally, the third
area of investigation is constituted by the analysis of human–
robot personality similarities and differences (match and
mismatch). In this regard, several studies found a positive
effect of personality match on the quality of interaction, in
terms of enjoyment and engagement, social attraction,
credibility, trust, and compliance.30–33
Research showed that, besides personality traits, other in-
dividual differences affect both interactions and interpersonal
relationships with robots, as well as the expectations of im-
plementation of technical and interactional features into robots.
Different studies analyzed the effect of people’s negative
attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction, reveal-
ing that repeated interactions can reduce the levels of anxiety
experienced toward robots34 and that the attitudes are a
moderator factor for the effects of social presence.35 Speci-
fically, the greater the human negative attitudes toward ro-
bots, the less social influence robots exert in interactive
games on the human partner.36 In other words, people’s at-
titudes toward robots can positively or negatively influence
coadaptation between humans and robots, shaping a specific
intersubjective space that is fundamental for sharing expe-
riences and for relational dynamics.
Attitudes toward robots are also an important predictor
factor of people’s expectations for implementing relational
skills into robots. A recent study showed that the expectations
of young adults can be placed along a continuum of human-
ization of the robot and that negative attitudes toward robots
can reveal the type of expectations in terms of humanization.37
360
The results showed that more positive attitudes toward robots
are not necessarily associated with a greater desire to imple-
ment robots’ relational skills. These findings stress that indi-
vidual traits are crucial for understanding the different
coadaptation forms between humans and robots.
Thus, although human–robot relationships develop dy-
namically after only short interactions,38 it is important to
take into account some individual factors that come into play
and contribute coherently and adaptively to the co-
construction of the human–robot relationship.
Identity
Although a key component of coadaptation is the possibility
to change, following the context, the events, and the needs of
the partner, this poses a risk. If an agent constantly changes, it
is impossible to define its identity. In other words, the human
will no longer be able to build an understanding of the partner
and anticipate it, practically destroying the possibility for an
interaction.39 Indeed, identity is a key component of a rela-
tional architecture. On the one hand, it cannot be conceived as
a static preprogrammed feature, otherwise, it would hinder
coadaptation; on the other hand, providing unconstrained
adaptability to the robot would prevent the evolution of stable
behavioral features, which are necessary building blocks to
develop and sustain the relationship, by eliciting positive fa-
miliarity.40 Since identity in humans derives from a complex
interplay of genetic, environmental, social, and cultural factors,
determining how this should be intended for robots is a task
that goes beyond the scope of this short reflection. However,
this is a problem that will need to be tackled if we are to build
human–robot shared experiences.
The intrinsic dialogic nature of the human being has long
been debated in philosophy. Martin Buber in his book I and
Thou41 argues that the full understanding of one’s own
identity (the I) is strictly dependent on the dialogue with
another presence (the Thou). The heteronomous revelation of
a singular presence calls the subject into an open-ended re-
lationship. At the core of this model of existence is the notion
of ‘‘encounter’’ as a revelation of ‘‘presence’’ (Gegenwart).
In contrast to ‘‘object’’ (Gegenstand), the presence revealed
by an encounter occupies the space ‘‘in-between’’ the subject
and another. This ‘‘in-between’’ space is defined as ‘‘mutu-
al’’ (Gegenseitig).
This stance prompts a deeper exploration of the concept
of ‘‘encounter’’ in the context of human–robot shared
experiences.
Conclusion
In this article, we propose a shift in focus from estab-
lishing human–robot interactions to achieving human–robot
shared experiences. We argued that to trigger this change in
perspective, the following dimensions should be taken into
closer consideration: the coadaptation between agents, the
emergence of intersubjectivity, and the role of individual
differences and identity.
Most current cognitive architectures are designed to allow
a robot to intelligently operate in the environment,42 with
limited or nonexistent modeling of the components of social
and affective cognition. This gap becomes evident when
robots are faced with real-life contexts and activities, which
often span over extended temporal periods. While the human
GAGGIOLI ET AL.
partners grow, change, and learn from the interaction with
each other, the robot is left to its capabilities, without the
skill to adapt and form shared experiences with the partners.
From a methodological viewpoint, aiming at human–robot
shared experiences would imply, on the one hand, changing the
existing ‘‘solipsistic’’ approach to architecture design; on the
other hand, developing more inclusive evaluation frameworks,
which extend the focus from functional aspects of the human–
robot interaction to its social experiential dimension.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Funding Information
This article was supported by Università Cattolica del
Sacro Cuore (D3.2—2018—Human–Robot Confluence
project).
References
1. Roschelle J, Teasley SD. (1995) The construction of shared
knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’Malley
C, ed. Computer supported collaborative learning. NATO
ASI Series (Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences), vol
128. Berlin: Springer.
2. Nikolaidis S, Hsu D, Srinivasa S. Human-robot mutual
adaptation in collaborative tasks: models and experiments.
The International Journal of Robotics Research 2017; 36:
618–634.
3. Tanevska A, Rea F, Sandini G, et al. A socially adaptable
framework for human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Ro-
botics and AI 2020; 7:121.
4. Sandini G, Mohan V, Sciutti A, et al. Social cognition for
human-robot symbiosis—challenges and building blocks.
Frontiers in Neurobotics 2018; 12:34.
5. Marchetti A, Di Dio C, Manzi F, et al. Robotics in clinical
and developmental psychology. Reference Module in
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology 2020. DOI:
10.1016/B978-0-12-818697-8.00005-4
6. Marchetti A, Manzi F, Itakura S, et al. Theory of mind and
humanoid robots from a lifespan perspective. Zeitschrift für
Psychologie 2018; 226:98–109.
7. Manzi F, Massaro D, Di Lernia D, et al. Robot are not all
the same: young adults’ expectations, attitudes and mental
attribution to two social robots. Cyberpsychology, Beha-
vior, and Social Networking 2020 [Epub ahead of print];
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2020.0162.
8. Manzi F, Peretti G, Di Dio C, et al. A robot is not worth
another: exploring children’s mental state attribution to
different humanoid robots. Frontiers in Psychology 2020;
10:2011.
9. Di Dio C, Manzi F, Peretti G, et al. Shall I trust you? From
child human-robot interaction to trusting relationships.
Frontiers in Psychology 2020; 11:469.
10. Stern DM. (2004) The present moment in psychotherapy and
everyday life. New York: W. & W. Norton & Company.
11. Vygotsky LS. (1978) Mind in society: the development of
higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
12. Manzi F, Ishikawa M, Di Dio C, et al. The understanding of
congruent and incongruent referential gaze in 17-month-old
infants: an eye-tracking study comparing human and robot.
Scientific Reports 2020; 10:11918.
 TOWARD HUMAN–ROBOT SHARED EXPERIENCE
13. Aroyo AM, Rea F, Sandini G, et al. Trust and social en-
gineering in human robot interaction: will a robot make you
disclose sensitive information, conform to its recommen-
dations or gamble? IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters
(RA-L) 2018; 3:3701–3708.
14. Cross ES, Hortensius R, Wykowska A. From social brains
to social robots: applying neurocognitive insights to hu-
man–robot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2019; 374:20180024.
15. Manzi F, Di Dio C, Di Lernia D, et al. Can you activate
me? From robots to human’ brain. Frontiers in Robotics
and AI 2021; 8:633514.
16. Dumouchel P, Damiano L. (2016) Vivre avec les robots.
Essai sur l’empathie artificielle: Essai sur l’empathie ar-
tificielle. Paris, France: Le Seuil.
17. Damiano L, Dumouchel P. Anthropomorphism in human–
robot co-evolution. Frontiers in Psychology 2018; 9:468.
18. Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K. A survey of socially
interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems
2003; 42:143–166.
19. Maggioni MA, Rossignoli D. (2021) If it looks like a
human and speaks like a human.dialogue and cooperation
in human-robot interactions, ArXiv:2104.11652.
20. Robert L, Alahmad R, Esterwood C, et al. A review of
personality in human-robot interactions. Foundations and
Trends in Information Systems 2020; 4:107–212.
21. Pervin LA, Cervone D, John OP. (2005) Personality: the-
ory and research. 9th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
22. McCrae RR, Costa PT, Jr. (2008) The five-factor theory of
personality. In John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA, eds.
Handbook of personality: theory and research. 3rd ed. New
York: Guilford.
23. Conti D, Commodari E, Buono S. Personality factors and
acceptability of socially assistive robotics in teachers with
and without specialized training for children with disability.
Life Span and Disability 2017; 20:251–272.
24. Robert L. (2018) Personality in the human robot interaction
literature: a review and brief critique. In Robert LP, ed.
Personality in the human robot interaction literature: a
review and brief critique, Proceedings of the 24th Americas
Conference on Information Systems. New Orleans, LA:
AMCIS, pp. 16–18.
25. Reich-Stiebert N, Eyssel F. Learning with educational
companion robots? Toward attitudes on education robots,
predictors of attitudes, and application potentials for edu-
cation robots. International Journal of Social Robotics
2015; 7:875–888.
26. Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Walters ML, et al. (2007) A per-
sonalized robot companion? The role of individual differ-
ences on spatial preferences in HRI scenarios. ROMAN
2007-The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot
and Human Interactive Communication. Jeju, Korea: IEEE,
pp. 1143–1148.
27. De Ruyter B, Saini P, Markopoulos P, et al. Assessing the
effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface
for the home. Interacting with Computers 2005; 17:522–
541.
28. Looije R, Neerincx MA, Cnossen F. Persuasive robotic
assistant for health self- management of older adults: de-
sign and evaluation of social behaviors. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2010; 68:386–397.
29. Tay B, Jung Y, Park T. When stereotypes meet robots: the
double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in hu-
View publication stats
361
man–robot interaction. Computers in Human Behavior
2014; 38:75–84.
30. Andriella A, Siqueira H, Fu D, et al. Do I have a person-
ality? Endowing care robots with context-dependent per-
sonality traits. International Journal of Social Robotics
2020; 1–22. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1007/s12369-
020-00690-5.
31. Joosse M, Lohse M, Perez JG, et al. (2013) What you do is
who you are: the role of task context in perceived social
robot personality. In 2013 IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation. Karlsruhe, Germany: IEEE,
pp. 2134–2139.
32. Niculescu A, van Dijk B, Nijholt A, et al. Making social
robots more attractive: the effects of voice pitch, humor and
empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics 2013; 5:
171–191.
33. Salam H, Celiktutan O, Hupont I, et al. Fully automatic
analysis of engagement and its relationship to personality in
human-robot interactions. IEEE Access 2017; 5:705–721.
34. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, et al. Prediction of human
behavior in human-robot interaction using psychological
scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots.
IEEE Transactions on Robotics 2008; 24:442–451.
35. Schellen E, Wykowska A. Intentional mindset toward ro-
bots—open questions and methodological challenges.
Frontiers in Robotics and AI 2019; 5:139.
36. Hinz NA, Ciardo F, Wykowska A. (2019) Individual dif-
ferences in attitude toward robots predict behavior in
human-robot interaction. In International Conference on
Social Robotics. Cham: Springer, pp. 64–73.
37. Manzi F, Sorgente A, Massaro D, et al. Emerging adults’
expectations about next generation of robots: exploring
robotic needs through a latent profile analysis. Cyberpsy-
chology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2021 [Epub
ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2020.0161.
38. Edwards A, Edwards C, Westerman D, et al. Initial ex-
pectations, interactions, and beyond with social robots.
Computers in Human Behavior 2019; 90:308–314.
39. Sciutti A, Mara M, Tagliasco V, et al. Humanizing human-
robot interaction: on the importance of mutual under-
standing. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 2018;
37:22–29.
40. Finkel EJ, Norton MI, Reis HT, et al. When does famil-
iarity promote versus undermine interpersonal attraction? A
proposed integrative model from erstwhile adversaries.
Perspectives on Psychological Science 2015; 10:3–19.
41. Buber M. (1970) I and thou (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original work published
1923).
42. Kotseruba I, Tsotsos JK. 40 years of cognitive architec-
tures: core cognitive abilities and practical applications.
Artificial Intelligence Review 2020; 53:17–94.
Address correspondence to:
Prof. Andrea Gaggioli
Department of Psychology
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Largo Gemelli 1
Milan 20123
Italy
E-mail: andrea.gaggioli@unicatt.ti