Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Some Humanoid Faces Are Perceived More Positively Than Others: Effects of Human-Likeness and Task

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ample research in social psychology has highlighted the importance of the human face in human–human interactions. However, there is a less clear understanding of how a humanoid robot’s face is perceived by humans. One of the primary goals of this study was to investigate how initial perceptions of robots are influenced by the extent of human-likeness of the robot’s face, particularly when the robot is intended to provide assistance with tasks in the home that are traditionally carried out by humans. Moreover, although robots have the potential to help both younger and older adults, there is limited knowledge of whether the two age groups’ perceptions differ. In this study, younger (\(N=32\)) and older adults (\(N=32\)) imagined interacting with a robot in four different task contexts and rated robot faces of varying levels of human-likeness. Participants were also interviewed to assess their reasons for particular preferences. This multi-method approach identified patterns of perceptions across different appearances as well as reasons that influence the formation of such perceptions. Overall, the results indicated that people’s perceptions of robot faces vary as a function of robot human-likeness. People tended to over-generalize their understanding of humans to build expectations about a human-looking robot’s behavior and capabilities. Additionally, preferences for humanoid robots depended on the task although younger and older adults differed in their preferences for certain humanoid appearances. The results of this study have implications both for advancing theoretical understanding of robot perceptions and for creating and applying guidelines for the design of robots.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ADLs:

Activities of daily living

IADLs:

Instrumental activities of daily living

EADLs:

Enhanced activities of daily living

DVs:

Dependent variables

PU:

Perceived usefulness

References

  1. Zebrowitz LA, Montepare JM (2008) Social psychological face perception: why appearance matters. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 2(3):1497–1517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zebrowitz LA (1997) Reading faces: window to the soul?. Westview, Boulder, CO

    Google Scholar 

  3. Masip J, Garrido E, Herrero C (2004) Facial appearance and impressions of ‘credibility’: the effects of facial babyishness and age on person perception. Int J Psychol 39(4):276–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bar M, Neta M, Linz H (2006) Very first impressions. Emotion 6(2):269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zebrowitz LA, Rhodes G (2004) Sensitivity to “bad genes” and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. J Nonverbal Behav 28(3):167–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hassin R, Trope Y (2000) Facing faces: studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy. J Pers Soc Psychol 78(5):837–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brownlow S (1992) Seeing is believing: facial appearance, credibility, and attitude change. J Nonverbal Behav 16(2):101–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Riggio RE, Widaman KF, Tucker JS, Salinas C (1991) Beauty is more than skin deep: components of attractiveness. Basic Appl Soc Psych 12(4):423–439. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1204_4

  9. Walster E, Aronson V, Abrahams D, Rottman L (1966) Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 4(5):508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Todorov A, Mandisodza AN, Goren A, Hall CC (2005) Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science 308(5728):1623–1626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blow M, Dautenhahn K, Appleby A, Nehaniv CL, Lee D (2006) The art of designing robot faces: dimensions for human-robot interaction. In: 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human–robot interaction, 2006, ACM, pp 331–332

  15. MacDorman KF, Ishiguro H (2006) The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interact Stud 7(3):297–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. DiSalvo CF, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: 4th Confeference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, 2002, ACM, pp 321–326

  17. Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4):33–35 (translated into English by MacDorman KF, Minato T, 2005, Proceedings of the humanoids-2005 workshop: views of the uncanny valley, Tsukuba, Japan)

  18. Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N (2012) The uncanny valley [from the field]. Robot Automat Mag 19(2):98–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen H, Russell R, Nakayama K, Livingstone M (2010) Crossing the “uncanny valley”: adaptation to cartoon faces can influence perception of human faces. Percept 39(3):378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Geller T (2008) Overcoming the uncanny valley. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl 28(4):11–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Groom V, Nass C, Chen T, Nielsen A, Scarborough JK, Robles E (2009) Evaluating the effects of behavioral realism in embodied agents. Int J Hum–Comput Stud 67(10):842–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. MacDorman KF, Green RD, Ho C-C, Koch CT (2009) Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Comput Hum Behav 25(3):695–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schneider E, Wang Y, Yang S (2007) Exploring the uncanny valley with Japanese video game characters. In: Proceedings of DiGRA conference 2007, pp 546–549

  24. Thompson JC, Trafton JG, McKnight P (2011) The perception of humanness from the movements of synthetic agents. Percept 40(6):695–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. MacDorman KF (2006) Subjective ratings of robot video clips for human likeness, familiarity, and eeriness: an exploration of the uncanny valley. In: ICCS/CogSci-2006 long symposium: toward social mechanisms of android science, 2006, pp 26–29

  26. Rosenthal-von der Pütten AM, Krämer NC (2014) How design characteristics of robots determine evaluation and uncanny valley related responses. Comput Hum Behav 36:422–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Burleigh TJ, Schoenherr JR, Lacroix GL (2013) Does the uncanny valley exist? An empirical test of the relationship between eeriness and the human likeness of digitally created faces. Comput Hum Behav 29(3):759–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Smarr C-A, Fausset CB, Rogers WA (2011) Understanding the potential for robot assistance for older adults in the home environment (HFA-TR-1102). Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Psychology, Human Factors and Aging Laboratory, Atlanta, GA

  29. Lawton MP (1990) Aging and performance of home tasks. Hum Factors 32(5):527–536

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rogers WA, Meyer B, Walker N, Fisk AD (1998) Functional limitations to daily living tasks in the aged: a focus group analysis. Hum Factors 40(1):111–125. doi:10.1518/001872098779480613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fisk AD, Rogers WA, Charness N, Czaja SJ, Sharit J (2009) Designing for older adults: principles and creative human factors approaches, 2nd edn. CRC, Boca Raton, FL

  32. Broadbent E, Tamagawa R, Patience A, Knock B, Kerse N, Day K, MacDonald BA (2012) Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australas J Ageing 31(2):115–120. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6612.2011.00551.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Prakash A, Beer JM, Deyle T, Smarr C-A, Chen TL, Mitzner TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA Older adults’ medication management in the home: how can robots help? In: 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), 2013, IEEE, pp 283–290

  34. Smarr C-A, Mitzner TL, Beer JM, Prakash A, Chen TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA (2014) Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. Int J of Soc Robot 6(2):229–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lohse M, Hegel F, Swadzba A, Rohlfing K, Wachsmuth S, Wrede B (2007) What can I do for you? Appearance and application of robots. In: Workshop on The Reign of Catz and Dogz? The role of virtual creatures in a computerised society, pp 121–126

  36. Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), 2003, pp 55–60. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2003.1251796

  37. Hinds PJ, Roberts TL, Jones H (2004) Whose job is it anyway? A study of human–robot interaction in a collaborative task. Hum–Comput Interact 19(1):151–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Beer JM, Smarr C, Chen TL, Prakash A, Mitzner TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA (2012) The domesticated robot: design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. In: 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), 2012. IEEE, pp 335–342

  39. Ezer N (2008) Is a robot an appliance, teammate, or friend? Age-related differences in expectations of and attitudes towards personal home-based robots. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology

  40. Wu Y-H, Fassert C, Rigaud A-S (2012) Designing robots for the elderly: appearance issue and beyond. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 54(1):121–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Walters ML, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R, Koay KL (2008) Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Auton Robot 24(2):159–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K (2004) Psychology in human–robot communication: an attempt through investigation of negative attitudes and anxiety toward robots. In: 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), 2004, pp 35–40

  43. Hegel F, Lohse M, Wrede B (2009) Effects of visual appearance on the attribution of applications in social robotics. In: 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), 2009, IEEE, pp 64–71

  44. Bartneck C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) My robotic doppelgänger—a critical look at the uncanny valley. In: RO-MAN, 2009, IEEE, pp 269–276

  45. Mathur MB, Reichling DB (2009) An uncanny game of trust: social trustworthiness of robots inferred from subtle anthropomorphic facial cues. In: 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), 2009, ACM, pp 313–314

  46. Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart 27(3):425–478

  48. Bagozzi RP, Davis FD, Warshaw PR (1992) Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Human Relat 45(7):659–686. doi:10.1177/001872679204500702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Goodhue DL, Thompson RL (1995) Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quart 19(2):213–236

  50. Walters ML (2008) The design space for robot appearance and behaviour for social robot companions. Dissertation, University of Hertfordshire

  51. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interact Stud 7(3):437–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Measurement of anxiety toward robots. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), 2006, IEEE, pp 372–377

  53. Broadbent E, Tamagawa R, Kerse N, Knock B, Patience A, MacDonald BA (2009) Retirement home staff and residents’ preferences for healthcare robots. In: Proceedings of RO-MAN, 2009, IEEE, pp 645–650

  54. Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. Int J of Soc Robot 2(4):361–375. doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5

  55. Weiss HM, Cropanzano R (1996) Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds) Research in organizational behavior: an annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, vol 18. Elsevier Science/JAI, New York, pp 1–74

    Google Scholar 

  56. Lewis JD, Weigert A (1985) Trust as a social reality. Soc Forces 63(4):967–985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. McAllister DJ (1995) Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad Manage J 38(1):24–59

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  58. Prakash A, Rogers WA (2013) Younger and older adults’ attitudes toward robot faces effects of task and humanoid appearance. In: Human factors and ergonomics society 57th annual meet, 2013, pp 114–118

  59. Prakash A (2013) Understanding younger and older adults’ perceptions of humanoid robots: effects of facial appearance and task. Master’s Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology

  60. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, Sharit J (2006) Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging 21(2):333–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D, Tamkins MM (2004) Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. J App Psychol 89(3):416–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Paepcke S, Takayama L (2010) Judging a bot by its cover: an experiment on expectation setting for personal robots. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on hum–robot interaction (HRI), 2010, IEEE, pp 45–52

  64. Hanson D, Olney A, Prilliman S, Mathews E, Zielke M, Hammons D, Fernandez R, Stephanou H (2005) Upending the uncanny valley. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, 2005, Menlo Park, CA. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 1728–1729

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was part of the first author’s master’s thesis [59]. The research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute on Aging) Grant P01 AG17211 under the auspices of the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE; http://www.create-center.org). We would like to thank Dr. Leslie DeChurch and Dr. Arthur D. Fisk for their input at various stages of this study. We also acknowledge the assistance from Laura Matalenas, Russell Bowles, and Shelby Long with data collection and analysis. Portions of data from this research study have been presented previously in Prakash and Rogers [58].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 654 Cherry Street NW, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0170, USA

    Akanksha Prakash & Wendy A. Rogers

Authors
  1. Akanksha Prakash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wendy A. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akanksha Prakash.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prakash, A., Rogers, W.A. Why Some Humanoid Faces Are Perceived More Positively Than Others: Effects of Human-Likeness and Task. Int J of Soc Robotics 7, 309–331 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0269-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0269-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation