Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-qdpjg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T21:34:31.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Virtual and real: Symbolic and natural experiences with social robots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2023

Byron Reeves Open the ORCID record for Byron Reeves [Opens in a new window]
Byron Reeves*
Affiliation:
Department of Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA [email protected] screenomics.stanford.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interactions with social robots are symbolic experiences guided by the pretense that robots depict real people. But they can also be natural experiences that are direct, automatic, and independent of any thoughtful mapping between what is real and depicted. Both experiences are important, both may apply within the same interaction, and they may vary within a person over time.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e43
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailenson, J. (2018). Experience on demand: What virtual reality is, how it works, and what it can do. WW Norton.Google Scholar
Bartsch, A., Kalch, A., & Oliver, M. B. (2014). Moved to think: The role of emotional media experiences in stimulating reflective thoughts. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 26(3), 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolls, P. D., Lang, A., & Potter, R. F. (2001). The effects of message valence and listener arousal on attention, memory, and facial muscular responses to radio advertisements. Communication Research, 28(5), 627–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C., Hensel, L. B., Duan, Y., Ince, R. A., Garrod, O. G., Beskow, J., … Schyns, P. G. (2019). Equipping Social Robots with Culturally-Sensitive Facial Expressions of Emotion using Data-Driven Methods. 2019 14th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2019) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335–359.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. J., & Reeves, B. (2022). Stimulus sampling and research integrity. In Jussim, L. J., Krosnick, J. A., & Stevens, S. T. (Eds.), Research integrity: Best practices for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 203–223). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, N., Mohseni, M. R., & Walter, R. (2020). Design, use, and effects of sex dolls and sex robots: Scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(7), e18551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, G., & Ju, W. (2014). Designing robots with movement in mind. Journal of Human–Robot Interaction, 3(1), 91–122.Google Scholar
Hu, Y., & Hoffman, G. (2019). Using Skin Texture Change to Design Emotion Expression in Social Robots. 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 2–10). IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, S. H., Cho, H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Media literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 454–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kiilavuori, H., Sariola, V., Peltola, M. J., & Hietanen, J. K. (2021). Making eye contact with a robot: Psychophysiological responses to eye contact with a human and with a humanoid robot. Biological Psychology, 158, 107989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790.Google ScholarPubMed
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication 50(1), 46–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, A., Dhillon, K., & Dong, Q. (1995). The effects of emotional arousal and valence on television viewers’ cognitive capacity and memory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39(3), 313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J. J., Ju, W., & Reeves, B. (2017). Touching a mechanical body: Tactile contact with body parts of a humanoid robot is physiologically arousing. Journal of Human–Robot Interaction, 6(3), 118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, S., & Reeves, B. (2010). Computer agents versus avatars: Responses to interactive game characters controlled by a computer or other player. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 68(1–2), 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmpena, M., Lim, A., & Dahl, T. S. (2018). How does the robot feel? Perception of valence and arousal in emotional body language. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 9(1), 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meshi, D., Tamir, D. I., & Heekeren, H. R. (2015). The emerging neuroscience of social media. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(12), 771–782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okita, S. Y., Bailenson, J., & Schwartz, D. L. (2007). The mere belief of social interaction improves learning. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society (Vol. 29, p. 29). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Reeves, B., Hancock, J., & Liu, S. (2020). How do people perceive social robots and what makes them effective. Technology, Mind and Behavior, 1(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
Reeves, B., Lang, A., Kim, E. Y., & Tatar, D. (1999). The effects of screen size and message content on attention and arousal. Media Psychology, 1(1), 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people (Vol. 10, p. 236605). .Google Scholar
Reeves, B., Yeykelis, L., & Cummings, J. J. (2016). The use of media in media psychology. Media Psychology, 19(1), 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1990). Mind sights: Original visual illusions, ambiguities, and other anomalies, with a commentary on the play of mind in perception and art. WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Willemse, C. J., & Van Erp, J. B. (2019). Social touch in human–robot interaction: Robot-initiated touches can induce positive responses without extensive prior bonding. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(2), 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worth, S., & Gross, L. (1974). Symbolic strategies. Journal of Communication, 24(4), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worth, S., & Gross, L. (2017). Symbolic strategies. In Communication theory (pp. 121–136). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarkoni, T. (2022). The generalizability crisis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, 1–78.Google Scholar