IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v208y2024ics0040162524004815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Viewing machines as humans but humans as machines? Social connectedness shapes the robot anthropomorphism-dehumanization link

Author

Listed:
  • Dang, Jianning
  • Liu, Li

Abstract

Human interactions with social robots inevitably involve anthropomorphism. Concerns have arisen regarding whether robot anthropomorphism is accompanied by negative human relationships. In particular, limited empirical research suggests that the more humanness people attribute to nonhuman agents (e.g., social robots), the more they deny to humans, thus implying a positive association between robot anthropomorphism and dehumanization. From a motivational perspective, we examined whether social connectedness—the perception of closeness with others—may expand the scope of agents deserving to be treated as having humanness, thereby tempering the possible positive association between robot anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Across three studies (two preregistered) conducted with Chinese participants, we induced social connectedness and measured anthropomorphism of social robots and dehumanization of certain individuals. Robot anthropomorphism negatively predicted dehumanization on human nature traits and the mental capacity to feel among participants induced to feel social connectedness (but not social neutrality or disconnectedness). Although their generalizability across diverse cultures warrants further investigation, our findings offer novel theoretical insights into humanness attribution, and practical implications for promoting social cohesion in the era of intelligent machines.

Suggested Citation

  • Dang, Jianning & Liu, Li, 2024. "Viewing machines as humans but humans as machines? Social connectedness shapes the robot anthropomorphism-dehumanization link," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:208:y:2024:i:c:s0040162524004815
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123683
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162524004815
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123683?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fangyuan Chen & Jaideep Sengupta & Rashmi Adaval, 2018. "Does Endowing a Product with Life Make One Feel More Alive? The Effect of Product Anthropomorphism on Consumer Vitality," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(4), pages 503-513.
    2. Erik Hermann, 2022. "Anthropomorphized artificial intelligence, attachment, and consumer behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 157-162, March.
    3. Chang, Yaping & Gao, Yajie & Zhu, Donghong & Safeer, Asif Ali, 2023. "Social robots: Partner or intruder in the home? The roles of self-construal, social support, and relationship intrusion in consumer preference," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    4. Paolacci, Gabriele & Chandler, Jesse & Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G., 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    5. James A. Mourey & Jenny G. Olson & Carolyn Yoon, 2017. "Products as Pals: Engaging with Anthropomorphic Products Mitigates the Effects of Social Exclusion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(2), pages 414-431.
    6. Søraa, Roger Andre & Nyvoll, Pernille & Tøndel, Gunhild & Fosch-Villaronga, Eduard & Serrano, J. Artur, 2021. "The social dimension of domesticating technology: Interactions between older adults, caregivers, and robots in the home," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dang, Ngoc Bich & Bertrandias, Laurent, 2023. "Social robots as healing aids: How and why powerlessness influences the intention to adopt social robots," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    2. Qin, Huanyu & Xie, Zhipeng & Ding, Chen & Wang, Jingyuan & Xu, Yi, 2024. "Healing or hesitation? The impact of anthropomorphism on consumers' repair intentions for products," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    3. Karpinska-Krakowiak, Malgorzata & Eisend, Martin, 2021. "The Effects of Animistic Thinking, Animistic Cues, and Superstitions on Brand Responses on Social Media," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 104-117.
    4. Huang, Jingya & Wang, Liangyan & Chan, Eugene, 2024. "When does anthropomorphism hurt? How tool anthropomorphism negatively affects consumers' rewards for tool users," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    5. Chang, Yaping & Gao, Yajie & Zhu, Donghong & Safeer, Asif Ali, 2023. "Social robots: Partner or intruder in the home? The roles of self-construal, social support, and relationship intrusion in consumer preference," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    6. Sweldens, Steven & Puntoni, Stefano & Paolacci, Gabriele & Vissers, Maarten, 2014. "The bias in the bias: Comparative optimism as a function of event social undesirability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 229-244.
    7. Hsu, Dan K. & Burmeister-Lamp, Katrin & Simmons, Sharon A. & Foo, Maw-Der & Hong, Michelle C. & Pipes, Jesse D., 2019. "“I know I can, but I don't fit”: Perceived fit, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 311-326.
    8. Lutz, Christoph & Newlands, Gemma, 2018. "Consumer segmentation within the sharing economy: The case of Airbnb," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 187-196.
    9. Mariconda, Simone & Lurati, Francesco, 2015. "Does familiarity breed stability? The role of familiarity in moderating the effects of new information on reputation judgments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 957-964.
    10. Tobias Schlager & Ashley V. Whillans, 2022. "People underestimate the probability of contracting the coronavirus from friends," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
    12. Orazi, Davide C. & Pizzetti, Marta, 2015. "Revisiting fear appeals: A structural re-inquiry of the protection motivation model," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 223-225.
    13. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Gökçe Esenduran & James A. Hill & In Joon Noh, 2020. "Understanding the Choice of Online Resale Channel for Used Electronics," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(5), pages 1188-1211, May.
    15. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:287-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Ronayne, David & Sgroi, Daniel & Tuckwell, Anthony, 2021. "Evaluating the sunk cost effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 318-327.
    18. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    19. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    20. Efrat Dressler & Yevgeny Mugerman, 2023. "Doing the Right Thing? The Voting Power Effect and Institutional Shareholder Voting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(4), pages 1089-1112, April.
    21. Khaksar, Seyed Mohammad Sadegh & Shahmehr, Fatemeh S. & Miah, Shah & Daim, Tugrul & Ozdemir, Dilek, 2024. "Privacy concerns versus personalisation benefits in social robot acceptance by employees: A paradox theory — Contingency perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:208:y:2024:i:c:s0040162524004815. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.