Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems (지능정보연구)

Korea Intelligent Information System Society (한국지능정보시스템학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Are you a Machine or Human?: The Effects of Human-likeness on Consumer Anthropomorphism Depending on Construal Level

Are you a Machine or Human?: 소셜 로봇의 인간 유사성과 소비자 해석수준이 의인화에 미치는 영향

  • Lee, Junsik (Graduate School of Business IT, Kookmin University) ;
  • Park, Do-Hyung (Graduate School of Business IT/School of Management Information Systems, Kookmin University)
  • 이준식 (국민대학교 비즈니스 IT 전문대학원) ;
  • 박도형 (국민대학교 비즈니스 IT 전문대학원/경영정보학부)
  • Received : 2021.01.19
  • Accepted : 2021.03.05
  • Published : 2021.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recently, interest in social robots that can socially interact with humans is increasing. Thanks to the development of ICT technology, social robots have become easier to provide personalized services and emotional connection to individuals, and the role of social robots is drawing attention as a means to solve modern social problems and the resulting decline in the quality of individual lives. Along with the interest in social robots, the spread of social robots is also increasing significantly. Many companies are introducing robot products to the market to target various target markets, but so far there is no clear trend leading the market. Accordingly, there are more and more attempts to differentiate robots through the design of social robots. In particular, anthropomorphism has been studied importantly in social robot design, and many approaches have been attempted to anthropomorphize social robots to produce positive effects. However, there is a lack of research that systematically describes the mechanism by which anthropomorphism for social robots is formed. Most of the existing studies have focused on verifying the positive effects of the anthropomorphism of social robots on consumers. In addition, the formation of anthropomorphism of social robots may vary depending on the individual's motivation or temperament, but there are not many studies examining this. A vague understanding of anthropomorphism makes it difficult to derive design optimal points for shaping the anthropomorphism of social robots. The purpose of this study is to verify the mechanism by which the anthropomorphism of social robots is formed. This study confirmed the effect of the human-likeness of social robots(Within-subjects) and the construal level of consumers(Between-subjects) on the formation of anthropomorphism through an experimental study of 3×2 mixed design. Research hypotheses on the mechanism by which anthropomorphism is formed were presented, and the hypotheses were verified by analyzing data from a sample of 206 people. The first hypothesis in this study is that the higher the human-likeness of the robot, the higher the level of anthropomorphism for the robot. Hypothesis 1 was supported by a one-way repeated measures ANOVA and a post hoc test. The second hypothesis in this study is that depending on the construal level of consumers, the effect of human-likeness on the level of anthropomorphism will be different. First, this study predicts that the difference in the level of anthropomorphism as human-likeness increases will be greater under high construal condition than under low construal condition.Second, If the robot has no human-likeness, there will be no difference in the level of anthropomorphism according to the construal level. Thirdly,If the robot has low human-likeness, the low construal level condition will make the robot more anthropomorphic than the high construal level condition. Finally, If the robot has high human-likeness, the high construal levelcondition will make the robot more anthropomorphic than the low construal level condition. We performed two-way repeated measures ANOVA to test these hypotheses, and confirmed that the interaction effect of human-likeness and construal level was significant. Further analysis to specifically confirm interaction effect has also provided results in support of our hypotheses. The analysis shows that the human-likeness of the robot increases the level of anthropomorphism of social robots, and the effect of human-likeness on anthropomorphism varies depending on the construal level of consumers. This study has implications in that it explains the mechanism by which anthropomorphism is formed by considering the human-likeness, which is the design attribute of social robots, and the construal level of consumers, which is the way of thinking of individuals. We expect to use the findings of this study as the basis for design optimization for the formation of anthropomorphism in social robots.

최근 인간과 사회적으로 상호작용할 수 있는 소셜 로봇(Social Robot)에 대한 관심이 커지고 있다. ICT 기술 발전에 힘입어 소셜 로봇이 개인에게 맞춤형 서비스와 정서적 교감을 제공하기 쉬워졌으며, 현대의 사회문제들과 이로 인한 개인의 삶의 질 저하를 해소하기 위한 수단으로 소셜 로봇의 역할이 주목받고 있다. 소셜 로봇에 대한 관심에 힘입어 소셜 로봇 보급 또한 크게 늘고 있다. 많은 기업이 다양한 목표시장을 겨냥하기 위한 로봇 제품들을 시장에 선보이고 있으나, 현재까지 시장을 선도하는 명확한 흐름은 부재하다. 이에 따라 소셜 로봇의 디자인을 통해 로봇을 차별화하고자 하는 시도가 늘고 있다. 특히 의인화는 소셜 로봇 디자인에서 중요하게 연구되고 있으며, 소셜 로봇을 의인화하여 긍정적인 효과를 발현하려는 접근이 많이 시도되었다. 그러나 소셜 로봇에 대한 의인화가 형성되는 메커니즘을 체계적으로 설명하는 연구는 부족하다. 의인화에 대한 모호한 이해는 소셜 로봇의 의인화를 형성하기 위한 디자인 최적점의 도출을 어렵게 하고 있다. 본 연구는 소셜 로봇의 의인화가 형성되는 메커니즘을 검증하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 본 연구는 3×2 Mixed Design의 실험 연구를 통해 소셜 로봇의 인간 유사성(Human-likeness)과 개인의 해석수준(Construal Level)이 의인화 형성에 미치는 영향을 확인하였다. 의인화가 형성되는 메커니즘에 대한 6개의 연구 가설을 제시하고, 206명 표본의 데이터를 분석하여 가설을 검증하였다. 분석 결과 소셜 로봇의 인간 유사성 수준에 따라 로봇 의인화 수준이 높아지며, 소비자 해석수준에 따라 인간 유사성이 의인화에 미치는 영향이 다르게 나타남을 확인하였다. 본 연구는 소셜 로봇의 디자인 속성인 인간 유사성과 개인의 사고방식인 해석수준을 함께 고려하여 의인화가 형성되는 메커니즘을 설명하였다는 점에서 시사점이 있다. 본 연구의 결과를 소셜 로봇 의인화 형성을 위한 디자인 최적화의 기준으로 활용할 수 있을 것으로 기대한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Aarts, H., and A. Dijksterhuis, "The silence of the library: environment, situational norm, and social behavior," Journal of personality social psychology, Vol.84, No.1(2003), 18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.18
  2. Aggarwal, P., and A. L. McGill, "Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products," Journal of consumer research, Vol.34, No.4 (2007), 468-479. https://doi.org/10.1086/518544
  3. Ahn, H.-K., H. J. Kim, and P. Aggarwal, "Helping fellow beings: Anthropomorphized social causes and the role of anticipatory guilt," Psychological Science, Vol.25, No.1(2014), 224-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613496823
  4. Berger, J., & G. Fitzsimons, "Dogs on the street, pumas on your feet: How cues in the environment influence product evaluation and choice," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.45, No.1(2008), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.1.1
  5. Breazeal, C., "Emotion and sociable humanoid robots," International journal of human-computer studies, Vol.59, No.1-2(2003), 119-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00018-1
  6. Brown, S., "Where the wild brands are: Some thoughts on anthropomorphic marketing," The Marketing Review, Vol.10, No.3(2010), 209-224. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934710X523078
  7. Byun, S., & C.-H. Cho, "The Effect of the Anthropomorphism Level and Personalization Level on AI Financial Chatbot Recommendation Messages on Customer Response," The Korean Journal of Advertising and Public Relations, Vol.22, No.2(2020), 466-502. https://doi.org/10.16914/kadpr.2020.22.2.466
  8. Chen, R. P., E. W. Wan, & E. Levy, "The effect of social exclusion on consumer preference for anthropomorphized brands," Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.27, No.1(2017), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.05.004
  9. De Graaf, M. M., S. B. Allouch, and T. Klamer, "Sharing a life with Harvey: Exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot," Computers in human behavior, Vol.43(2015), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.030
  10. De Santis, A., B. Siciliano, A. De Luca, and A. Bicchi, "An atlas of physical human-robot interaction," Mechanism Machine Theory, Vol.43, No.3(2008), 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2007.03.003
  11. Dijksterhuis, A., and A. Van Knippenberg, "The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit," Journal of personality social psychology, Vol.74, No.4(1998), 865. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865
  12. DiSalvo, C. F., F. Gemperle, J. Forlizzi, and S. Kiesler, "All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads," Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. (2002).
  13. Epley, N., and T. Gilovich, "Just going along: Nonconscious priming and conformity to social pressure," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.35, No.6(1999), 578-589. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1390
  14. Epley, N., A. Waytz, and J. T. Cacioppo, "On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism," Psychological review, Vol.114, No.4(2007), 864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
  15. Eyssel, F., D. Kuchenbrandt, F. Hegel, and L. de Ruiter, "Activating elicited agent knowledge: How robot and user features shape the perception of social robots," Paper presented at the 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. (2012).
  16. Fitzsimons, G. M., T. L. Chartrand, and G. J. Fitzsimons, "Automatic effects of brand exposure on motivated behavior: how apple makes you "think different"," Journal of consumer research, Vol.35, No.1(2008), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1086/527269
  17. Fong, T., I. Nourbakhsh, and K. Dautenhahn, "A survey of socially interactive robots," Robotics and autonomous systems, Vol.42, No.3-4 (2003), 143-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X
  18. Gonzalez-Pacheco, V., A. Ramey, F. Alonso-Martin, A.Castro-Gonzalez, and M. A. Salichs, "Maggie: A social robot as a gaming platform," International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol3, No.4(2011), 371-381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0109-8
  19. Guido, G., and A. M. Peluso, "Brand anthropomorphism: Conceptualization, measurement, and impact on brand personality and loyalty," Journal of Brand Management, Vol.22, No.1(2015), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2014.40
  20. Hamilton, R. W., and D. V. Thompson, "Is there a substitute for direct experience? Comparing consumers' preferences after direct and indirect product experiences," Journal of consumer research, Vol.34, No.4(2007), 546-555. https://doi.org/10.1086/520073
  21. Higgins, E. T., "Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle," Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol.30(1998), 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0
  22. Hong, E., K. Cho, and J. Choi, "Effects of anthropomorphic conversational interface for smart home: An experimental study on the voice and chatting interactions," Journal of the HCI Society of Korea, Vol.12, No.1 (2017), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.17210/jhsk.2017.02.12.1.15
  23. Jang, M., and J. Kim, "Current Status and Future Prospect of Social Robots in the 4th Industrial Revolution Era," The Magazine of the IEEK, Vol.45, No.9(2018), 35-43.
  24. Jeon, B., and J. Park, "Proposing a Service based on a Social Robotic Figure that Supports Interaction Between Fans and K-pop Stars," Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology, Vol.6, No.10(2016), 499-508. https://doi.org/10.14257/AJMAHS.2016.10.06
  25. Kanda, T., M. Kamasima, M. Imai, T. Ono, D. Sakamoto, H. Ishiguro, and Y. Anzai, "A humanoid robot that pretends to listen to route guidance from a human," Autonomous Robots, Vol.22, No.1(2007), 87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-006-9007-6
  26. Kim, C., "Social Robot Behavior Expression Technology: Current Status and Prospects," Korea robotics society review, Vol.14, No.4(2017), 25-36.
  27. Kim, J., and J. Kim, "Effect of the Thinking Styles and Types of Product Attributes on the Purchase Intention and Choice," The Korean Journal of Advertising, Vol.25(2014), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.14377/KJA.2014.7.15.207
  28. Kim, P.-S., "Technology and development trends related to emotional robots that communicate with humans," Information & Communications Magazine, Vol.33, No.8(2016), 19-27.
  29. Kim, S.-H., "The present and future of intelligent robots," korean Institute of Information Technology Magazine, Vol.16, No.1(2018), 7-12.
  30. Kim, S., R. P. Chen, and K. Zhang, "Anthropomorphized helpers undermine autonomy and enjoyment in computer games," Journal of consumer research, Vol.43, No.2 (2016), 282-302. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw016
  31. Kim, S., and A. L. McGill, "Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception," Journal of consumer research, Vol.38, No.1 (2011), 94-107. https://doi.org/10.1086/658148
  32. Krach, S., F. Hegel, B. Wrede, G. Sagerer, F. Binkofski, and T. Kircher, "Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI," PloS one, Vol.3, No.7(2008), e2597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002597
  33. Kwak, S., T. Goh, K. Park, and J. Ahn, "The Usability of a Robot and Human Empathy by Anthropomorphic Sound Feedback," Journal of Korean Society of Design Science, Vol.23, No.3(2012), 20-27.
  34. Lee, H., and C. Han, "Technical Trend of the Lower Limb Exoskeleton System for the Performance Enhancement," Journal of Institute of Control, Robotics and Systems, Vol.20, No.3(2014), 364-371. https://doi.org/10.5302/J.ICROS.2014.14.9023
  35. Lee, S., "Comparison of Smart Toy Classification and Product Trends," Journal of Indusrial Design Studies, Vol.12, No.3(2018), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.37254/ids.2018.09.45.02.11
  36. Lee, W., and M. Chung, "IROS 2013 Social HRI Research Trend," Korea robotics society review, Vol.11, No.1(2014), 14-24.
  37. Leite, I., G. Castellano, A. Pereira, C. Martinho, and A. Paiva, "Empathic robots for long-term interaction," International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol.6, No.3(2014), 329-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0227-1
  38. Macrae, C. N., and L. Johnston, "Help, I need somebody: Automatic action and inaction," Social Cognition, Vol.16, No.4(1998), 400-417. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1998.16.4.400
  39. Pandey, A. K., and R. Gelin, "A mass-produced sociable humanoid robot: Pepper: The first machine of its kind," IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine, Vol.25, No.3(2018), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2018.2833157
  40. Park, D., and Y. Pan, "A Study on Human-Robot's Emotional Communication through the Movement of the Eye of a Social Robot," Journal of Korea Design Forum, Vol.63 (2019), 129-138. https://doi.org/10.21326/ksdt.2019.24.2.011
  41. Park, J., and J. Joo, "A behavioral economic approach to increase users' intention to continue to use the voice recognition speakers: Anthropomorphism," Design convergence study, Vol.17, No.3(2018), 42-53.
  42. Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo, "The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, "Communication and persuasion, Springer, New York. 1986.
  43. Phillips, E., X. Zhao, D. Ullman, and B. F. Malle, "What is Human-like? Decomposing Robots' Human-like Appearance Using the Anthropomorphic roBOT (ABOT) Database," Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. (2018).
  44. Reeves, B., and C. I. Nass, The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places: Cambridge university press, 1996.
  45. Rincon, J. A., A. Costa, P. Novais, V. Julian, and C. Carrascosa, "A new emotional robot assistant that facilitates human interaction and persuasion," Knowledge Information Systems, Vol.60, No.1(2019), 363-383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-018-1231-9
  46. Rodiae, A., M. Vujoviae, I. Stevanoviae, and M. Jovanoviae, "Development of human-centered social robot with embedded personality for elderly care," New Trends in Medical and Service Robots, Springer, 2016.
  47. Shin, D.-J., "Human Robot Interaction: ICRA 2014 Research Trend," Korea robotics society review, Vol.11, No.4(2014), 29-35.
  48. Song, Y., "A Study on the Personification Trend for the Sociality of Social Robot," Journal of Basic Design & Art, Vol.19, No.5(2018), 395-410. https://doi.org/10.47294/KSBDA.19.5.29
  49. Strahan, E. J., S. J. Spencer, and M. P. Zanna, "Subliminal priming and persuasion: How motivation affects the activation of goals and the persuasiveness of messages," Applying social cognition to consumer-focused strategy, 2005.
  50. Suh, M.-S., H. Lee, and T.-S. Rho, "The Brand Anthropomorphized Advertising on the Advertising Effectiveness : Focusing on the Low-involvement Service and Product," The Korean Journal of Advertising, Vol.25, No.4(2014), 27-53. https://doi.org/10.14377/KJA.2014.5.30.27
  51. Taylor, S. E., "The interface of cognitive and social psychology," Cognition, social behavior, and the environment, 1981.
  52. Trope, Y., and N. Liberman, "Temporal construal," Psychological review, Vol.110, No.3(2003), 403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403
  53. Trope, Y., and N. Liberman, "Construal-level theory of psychological distance," Psychological review, Vol.117, No.2(2010), 440. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
  54. Vallacher, R. R., and D. M. Wegner, "What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior," Psychological review, Vol.94, No.1(1987), 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.3
  55. Vallacher, R. R., and D. M. Wegner, "Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification," Journal of personality social psychology, Vol.57, No.4(1989), 660. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.57.4.660
  56. Waytz, A., J. Heafner, and N. Epley, "The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.52(2014), 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005
  57. Wheeler, S. C., and J. Berger, "When the same prime leads to different effects," Journal of consumer research, Vol.34, No.3(2007), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1086/518547
  58. Wheeler, S. C., W. B. G. Jarvis, and R. E. Petty, "Think unto others: The self-destructive impact of negative racial stereotypes," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.37, No.2(2001), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1448
  59. Yu, e., and J. Kim, "Brand Anthropomorphism on SNS: Impact on Social Presence, Brand Experience and Attitude toward Brands," Advertising Research, Vol.115(2017), 366-393. https://doi.org/10.16914/ar.2017.115.366