The advisor robot: tracing people's mental model from a robot's physical attributes

By Aaron Powers, Sara B. Kiesler. IEEE/ACM International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2006

398 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb121cb2f3dd99d31d8c623229c81c8d55cb990d

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

A Cross-cultural Study: Effect of Robot Appearance and Task (2010, background): “As shown in previous studies, people tend to form a mental model and expectations of a robot’s qualifications even before the interaction begins [6, 7].”
Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces (2009, background): “Powers and Kiesler (2006) have developed a human likeness index whose items were adapted to a semantic differential scale by Bartneck (2008).”
Acceptance of Healthcare Robots for the Older Population: Review and Future Directions (2009, background): “The robot’s appearance influences how people appraise the abilities of the robot [60].”
How perceptions of intelligence and anthropomorphism affect adoption of personal intelligent agents (2020, background): “Prior work explored robots ’ sociability, humanlikeness, and machine-likeness (Kiesler and Goetz 2002a, 2002b; Kiesler et al., 2008; Powers and Kiesler, 2006); robots ’ movement, artifi-cialness, fakeness, and consciousness (Bartneck et al., 2007, 2009); attributions of intentions, consciousness,…”
Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions (2018, methodology): “Mindful anthro-pomorphism was measured using the items by Powers and Kiesler (2006), asking the participant about their perception regarding the chatbot when it comes to being human or machine-like, natural or unnatural and lifelike or arti ﬁ cial, along 7-point semantic differential scales.”
The Clinical Use of Robots for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Critical Review (2012, background): “…to objects versus biological motion (e.g., Klin et al., 2002; Klin & Jones, 2006; Klin et al., 2009), and emerging literature (e.g., Duffy, 2003; Powers & Kiesler, 2006; Powers, Kiesler, Fussell, & Torrey, 2007) examines how humans think about and classify different types of artificial…”
Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot (2007, background): “In our previous research, we have shown that even seemingly small differences in the shape of the robot’s head can affect participants’ perceptions and attributions of the robot [13].”
Receptionist or information kiosk: how do people talk with a robot? (2010, background): “According to social actor theory, people interact with machines as though they are other humans [41], but many studies show that this response depends on other factors, such as the form factor of the machine [39], whether people think their interaction is with a computer or person [36], the presumed”
(S)he's Got the Look: Gender Stereotyping of Robots1 (2012, background): “In human–robot interaction, the robot’s voice, demeanor, or its appearance function as social cues that provide information about the robot’s persona and subsequently guide social perception (Powers & Kiesler, 2006; Powers et al., 2005).”
Robot navigation in dense human crowds: Statistical models and experimental studies of human–robot cooperation (2015, background): “In order to develop a salient but not conspicuous robot (as described in [95, 86, 82]), we began testing with the simplest robotic form factor that indicated to human observers that the robot was both sensing and comprehending its environment (see Figure 4.”
Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots (2009, methodology): “Powers and Kiesler [16], in comparison, used six items and are able to report a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.85.”
Socially Assistive Robots in Elderly Care: A Mixed-Method Systematic Literature Review (2014, neutral): “Second, even though researchers showed the robot’s appearance affects its acceptance (e.g., Forlizzi, DiSalvo, & Gemperle, 2004; Hirsch et al., 2000; Powers & Kiesler, 2006; Wu, Fassert, & Rigaud, 2012), the majority of included studies used animal-like robots.”
Anthropomorphism and Human Likeness in the Design of Robots and Human-Robot Interaction (2012, background): “In conclusion, human social behavior, such as facial expression or the sound of voice [45], shape not only the way we interact with each other but also how a robot is evaluated.”
Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: Developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices (2010, background): “The indices are anthropomorphism (Powers & Kiesler, 2006), animacy (converted from Likert scales; Lee, Park, & Song, 2005), likeability (Monahan, 1998), perceived intelligence (Warner & Sugarman, 1996), and perceived safety (Kulic´& Croft, 2007).”