Individual differences predict sensitivity to the uncanny valley

By Karl Frederic MacDorman, Steven O. Entezari. 2015

161 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5d6a746a0531c9d81b2ff952bbcfe0403b596fa1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. P. Rochat
2. Shensheng Wang
3. S. Lilienfeld

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. P. Rochat
2. Shensheng Wang
3. S. Lilienfeld

In Social Psychology

1. P. Rochat
2. Shensheng Wang
3. S. Lilienfeld

Citations in the corpus

• Should Machines Express Sympathy and Empathy? Experiments with a Health Advice Chatbot (2018, unknown): “49 Believers in artificial emotion might see an expression of empathy or sympathy as a true manifestation of machine emotion, which could be disturbing, as suggested by UVM 26 ; disbelievers might treat the very same expression as nothing more than a trick rather than an indicator of machine emotion.”
• The Uncanny Valley: Existence and Explanations (2015, background): “First, individual differences in the sensitivity to uncanniness (MacDorman & Entezari, 2015) and the evaluation of human likeness are likely to introduce psychometric noise into self-reported ratings, particularly when participants see multiple categories of stimuli (e.g., toy robots, dolls,…”