人类和机器人心智化的差异和偏见

Sophie Husemann, Jan Pöppel, S. Kopp
{"title":"人类和机器人心智化的差异和偏见","authors":"Sophie Husemann, Jan Pöppel, S. Kopp","doi":"10.1109/RO-MAN53752.2022.9900849","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Theory of Mind is the process of ascribing mental states to other individuals we interact with. It is used for sense-making of the observed actions and prediction of future actions. Previous studies revealed that humans mentalize about artificial agents, but it is not entirely clear how and to what extent. At the same time mentalizing about humans is often influenced by biases such as an egocentric bias. We present a study investigating differences in participants’ ToM and their susceptibility to an egocentric bias when observing humans vs robots. The participants observed an autonomous robot, a controlled robot, and a human in the same scenarios. The agents had to find an object in a laboratory. While watching the agents, participants had to make several action predictions as an implicit measure of ToM, potentially revealing an egocentric bias. At the end, questions about the agent’s responsibility, awareness and strategy were asked. The results indicate that while participants generally performed ToM for all types of agents, both the scenario as well as the agent type appear to influence participants’ likelihood of exhibiting an egocentric bias.","PeriodicalId":250997,"journal":{"name":"2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences and Biases in Mentalizing About Humans and Robots\",\"authors\":\"Sophie Husemann, Jan Pöppel, S. Kopp\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/RO-MAN53752.2022.9900849\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Theory of Mind is the process of ascribing mental states to other individuals we interact with. It is used for sense-making of the observed actions and prediction of future actions. Previous studies revealed that humans mentalize about artificial agents, but it is not entirely clear how and to what extent. At the same time mentalizing about humans is often influenced by biases such as an egocentric bias. We present a study investigating differences in participants’ ToM and their susceptibility to an egocentric bias when observing humans vs robots. The participants observed an autonomous robot, a controlled robot, and a human in the same scenarios. The agents had to find an object in a laboratory. While watching the agents, participants had to make several action predictions as an implicit measure of ToM, potentially revealing an egocentric bias. At the end, questions about the agent’s responsibility, awareness and strategy were asked. The results indicate that while participants generally performed ToM for all types of agents, both the scenario as well as the agent type appear to influence participants’ likelihood of exhibiting an egocentric bias.\",\"PeriodicalId\":250997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN53752.2022.9900849\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN53752.2022.9900849","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

心理理论是将心理状态归因于与我们互动的其他人的过程。它用于对观察到的行为进行意义构建和对未来行为的预测。先前的研究表明,人类对人工代理有心理认知,但并不完全清楚如何以及在多大程度上。与此同时,对人类的心理认识经常受到偏见的影响,比如自我中心偏见。我们提出了一项研究,调查参与者在观察人类和机器人时ToM的差异以及他们对自我中心偏见的敏感性。参与者在相同的场景中观察一个自主机器人、一个受控机器人和一个人。特工们必须在实验室里找到一个物体。在观看代理的同时,参与者必须做出几个行动预测,作为对ToM的隐性衡量,这可能揭示出一种自我中心偏见。最后,询问代理人的责任、意识和策略。结果表明,虽然参与者通常对所有类型的代理执行ToM,但场景和代理类型似乎都影响参与者表现出自我中心偏见的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences and Biases in Mentalizing About Humans and Robots
Theory of Mind is the process of ascribing mental states to other individuals we interact with. It is used for sense-making of the observed actions and prediction of future actions. Previous studies revealed that humans mentalize about artificial agents, but it is not entirely clear how and to what extent. At the same time mentalizing about humans is often influenced by biases such as an egocentric bias. We present a study investigating differences in participants’ ToM and their susceptibility to an egocentric bias when observing humans vs robots. The participants observed an autonomous robot, a controlled robot, and a human in the same scenarios. The agents had to find an object in a laboratory. While watching the agents, participants had to make several action predictions as an implicit measure of ToM, potentially revealing an egocentric bias. At the end, questions about the agent’s responsibility, awareness and strategy were asked. The results indicate that while participants generally performed ToM for all types of agents, both the scenario as well as the agent type appear to influence participants’ likelihood of exhibiting an egocentric bias.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信