pith. sign in

arxiv: 2404.07409 · v1 · submitted 2024-04-11 · 💻 cs.HC

Too good to be true: People reject free gifts from robots because they infer bad intentions

Benjamin Lebrun , Andrew Vonasch , Christoph Bartneck This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 02:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords human-robot interactionphantom costsgenerositysocial inferenceembodimentdecision makingoffer acceptanceintent attribution
0
0 comments X

The pith

People reject overly generous offers from robots because they infer phantom costs or bad intentions, mirroring the effect with humans.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether people imagine hidden phantom costs in overly generous offers from robots, as they do from humans. In the study, participants received either a cookie or a cookie plus two dollars from a human or robot agent shown on screen or physically embodied, then decided to accept or decline. Results indicated lower acceptance for the more generous offer from robots across both embodiment types, though overall acceptance was higher for robots than humans. Embodiment increased acceptance for human offers but made no difference for robots. This shows people apply social reasoning about hidden motives to robots and that such inferences shape their choices in interactions.

Core claim

Participants perceived phantom costs in the cookie plus two dollars conditions when interacting with a robot, across both embodiment levels, leading to lower acceptance of the more generous offer. The same pattern appeared with human offerers. People were more likely to accept offers from a robot than from a human overall, yet accepted offers from physically embodied humans more often than screen ones while showing equal acceptance for robots regardless of embodiment. The work concludes that people treat robots as social agents possessing hidden intentions and knowledge, which in turn shapes their behavior toward them.

What carries the argument

The inference of phantom costs from an overly generous offer with no apparent reason.

If this is right

  • Robot designers should avoid making offers that appear overly generous without clear justification to maintain higher acceptance rates.
  • Physical embodiment does not reduce phantom cost perceptions for robots, unlike the pattern observed with humans.
  • People apply the same social inference processes to robots as to humans when evaluating offers.
  • Decision making in human-robot interaction is influenced by attributions of hidden intentions to the robot.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar suspicion effects could appear in other AI gift or assistance scenarios, such as chatbots offering unexpected help or discounts.
  • Explaining the reason for a robot's generous offer in advance might reduce the phantom cost inference and raise acceptance.
  • The finding raises the question of whether repeated exposure to robots changes the strength of these intention inferences over time.
  • It connects to design choices in reward systems or loyalty programs delivered by automated agents.

Load-bearing premise

Lower acceptance of the cookie plus two dollars offer specifically reflects inference of bad intentions or phantom costs rather than alternatives such as general distrust of robots or preference for simpler transactions.

What would settle it

A replication in which acceptance rates for the cookie plus two dollars offer equal or exceed those for the cookie alone from robots, or in which the generosity effect vanishes after measuring and controlling for baseline robot distrust.

read the original abstract

A recent psychology study found that people sometimes reject overly generous offers from people because they imagine hidden ''phantom costs'' must be part of the transaction. Phantom costs occur when a person seems overly generous for no apparent reason. This study aims to explore whether people can imagine phantom costs when interacting with a robot. To this end, screen or physically embodied agents (human or robot) offered to people either a cookie or a cookie + \$2. Participants were then asked to make a choice whether they would accept or decline the offer. Results showed that people did perceive phantom costs in the offer + \$2 conditions when interacting with a human, but also with a robot, across both embodiment levels, leading to the characteristic behavioral effect that offering more money made people less likely to accept the offer. While people were more likely to accept offers from a robot than from a human, people more often accepted offers from humans when they were physically compared to screen embodied but were equally likely to accept the offer from a robot whether it was screen or physically embodied. This suggests that people can treat robots (and humans) as social agents with hidden intentions and knowledge, and that this influences their behavior toward them. This provides not only new insights on how people make decisions when interacting with a robot but also how robot embodiment impacts HRI research.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends a prior psychology finding on 'phantom costs' (inferred hidden costs in overly generous offers) to human-robot interaction. In an experiment, participants received offers of either a cookie or a cookie plus $2 from agents that were either human or robot and either screen- or physically embodied. The central result is that acceptance rates are lower for the cookie+$2 offer than the cookie-only offer for both human and robot agents (across embodiment levels), which the authors interpret as evidence that people infer bad intentions or phantom costs from robots. Secondary findings include higher overall acceptance from robots than humans, and an embodiment effect for humans but not robots.

Significance. If the core behavioral pattern holds after controls for alternative accounts, the work would demonstrate that people apply intention-inference mechanisms to robots in economic decision-making, extending social-cognition findings to HRI. The dissociation between embodiment effects for humans versus robots could inform design choices about physical presence. The study also supplies a direct behavioral test rather than relying solely on self-report.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Results] Abstract and Results section: the directional drop in acceptance for the cookie+$2 offer is reported, but the manuscript supplies no indication of design features (e.g., additional control conditions, process measures, or manipulation checks) that isolate inference of bad intentions from simpler alternatives such as general aversion to multi-part transactions or perceived oddity of the offer format. Without such isolation the observed pattern remains compatible with non-intention accounts.
  2. [Methods] Methods section: the abstract (and by extension the reported findings) supplies no sample size, exclusion criteria, statistical tests, or raw data summary, preventing evaluation of whether the data support the phantom-costs interpretation over noise or low power.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'people more often accepted offers from humans when they were physically compared to screen embodied' but does not report the corresponding statistical contrast or effect size.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments. We address each major point below, providing clarifications on our design choices and committing to revisions that strengthen the reporting and discussion without misrepresenting the study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Results] Abstract and Results section: the directional drop in acceptance for the cookie+$2 offer is reported, but the manuscript supplies no indication of design features (e.g., additional control conditions, process measures, or manipulation checks) that isolate inference of bad intentions from simpler alternatives such as general aversion to multi-part transactions or perceived oddity of the offer format. Without such isolation the observed pattern remains compatible with non-intention accounts.

    Authors: We agree that the current design does not include additional control conditions or process measures (such as intention ratings or checks for perceived oddity) to fully isolate phantom-cost inferences from alternatives like aversion to multi-part offers. The study closely replicates the offer structure from the original phantom-costs psychology work, and the lower acceptance for the cookie+$2 offer replicates across both human and robot agents, which is consistent with the intention-inference account. We will revise the Discussion to explicitly acknowledge these alternative explanations as a limitation and suggest future experiments with process measures. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the abstract (and by extension the reported findings) supplies no sample size, exclusion criteria, statistical tests, or raw data summary, preventing evaluation of whether the data support the phantom-costs interpretation over noise or low power.

    Authors: The full manuscript's Methods and Results sections contain the sample size, exclusion criteria, statistical tests, and acceptance rate summaries, but we acknowledge that these details are absent from the abstract. We will revise the abstract to include the sample size, key statistical results, exclusion criteria, and a brief data summary to allow proper evaluation of the findings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical behavioral study with no derivations or self-referential claims

full rationale

The paper reports results from a direct-choice experiment (accept/decline offers from human vs. robot agents in screen vs. physical embodiment). No equations, fitted parameters, model predictions, or derivation chains exist. The central observation (lower acceptance of cookie+$2 from robots) is presented as raw behavioral data, not as a quantity derived from or equivalent to any input by construction. External citation to a prior psychology study is not self-citation and does not bear the load of the robot-specific claim. The work is therefore self-contained with no circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical study relying on standard social-psychology assumptions about intention inference; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms introduced beyond domain norms.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Participants interpret overly generous offers as potentially containing hidden costs or bad intentions
    Central to linking rejection behavior to phantom costs
  • domain assumption The experimental conditions isolate generosity as the causal factor
    Required to attribute acceptance differences to inferred intentions rather than other variables

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5769 in / 1242 out tokens · 23825 ms · 2026-05-24T02:43:43.673601+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Angelov, Eduardo Almeida Soares, Richard Jiang, Nicholas I

    Plamen P. Angelov, Eduardo Almeida Soares, Richard Jiang, Nicholas I. Arnold, and Peter M. Atkinson. Explainable artificial intelligence: an analytical review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 11, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    The social animal

    Elliot Aronson and Joshua Aronson. The social animal. Worth Publishers, Macmillan Learning, New York, twelfth edition edition,

    work page

  3. [3]

    ISBN 978-1-4641-4418-9. What is social psychology? – Social cognition – Self- justification – Conformity – Mass communi- cation, propaganda, and persuasion – Human aggression – Prejudice – Liking, loving, and connecting – Social psychology as a science

    work page

  4. [4]

    Bainbridge, Justin W

    Wilma A. Bainbridge, Justin W. Hart, Eliza- beth S. Kim, and Brian Scassellati. The ben- efits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Interna- tional Journal of Social Robotics , 3(1):41–52,

    work page

  5. [5]

    doi: https://doi

    ISSN 1875-4805. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s12369-010-0082-7. URL https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0082-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0082-7

  6. [6]

    Advice to New Human-Robot Interaction Researchers , volume 12, pages 355–369

    Tony Belpaeme. Advice to New Human-Robot Interaction Researchers , volume 12, pages 355–369. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020. ISBN 978-3-030-42307-0. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-42307-0 14. URL https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42307-0 14

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-42307-0 2020

  7. [7]

    Bradley and Peter J

    Margaret M. Bradley and Peter J. Lang. International Affective Picture Sys- tem, pages 1–4. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017. ISBN 978-3- 319-28099-8. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-28099-8 42-1. URL https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8 42-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8 2017

  8. [8]

    Escaping from children’s abuse of social robots

    Draˇ zen Brˇ sˇ ci´ c, Hiroyuki Kidokoro, Yoshitaka Suehiro, and Takayuki Kanda. Escaping from children’s abuse of social robots. In Pro- ceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI ’15, page 59–66, New York, NY, USA, 2015. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450328838. doi: https: //doi.org/10....

    work page doi:10.1145/2696454.2696468 2015

  9. [9]

    Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6:3–5, 02 2011

    Michael Buhrmester, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel Gosling. Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6:3–5, 02 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1745691610393980

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    de Graaf and Bertram F

    Maartje M.A. de Graaf and Bertram F. Malle. People’s explanations of robot behav- ior subtly reveal mental state inferences. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Con- ference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) , pages 239–248, 2019. doi: 10.1109/HRI.2019. 8673308

    work page doi:10.1109/hri.2019 2019

  11. [11]

    Daniel C. Dennett. The intentional stance . The intentional stance. The MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA, US, 1987. ISBN 0-262-04093-X (Hardcover)

    work page 1987

  12. [12]

    Testing for measurement equivalence in surveys dimen- sions of social trust across cultural context

    Markus Freitag and Paul Bauer. Testing for measurement equivalence in surveys dimen- sions of social trust across cultural context. Public Opinion Quarterly , 77:24–44, 2013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs064

    work page doi:10.1093/poq/nfs064 2013

  13. [13]

    Bruno S. Frey. Not just for the money: an economic theory of personal motivation . Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pbk. repr edition, 1997. ISBN 978-1-85898-509- 1 978-1-85898-845-0. Literaturverz. S. 126 - 147

    work page 1997

  14. [14]

    Comparing in-person, sona, and mechanical turk measurements of three prejudice-relevant constructs

    Bradlee Gamblin, Matthew Winslow, Ben- jamin Lindsay, Andrew Newsom, and Andre Kehn. Comparing in-person, sona, and mechanical turk measurements of three prejudice-relevant constructs. Current Psy- chology, 36, 06 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12144-015-9403-1

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Gray, Kurt Gray, and Daniel M

    Heather M. Gray, Kurt Gray, and Daniel M. Wegner. Dimensions of mind perception. Sci- ence, 315(5812):619–619, 2007. ISSN 1095- 9203(Electronic),0036-8075(Print). doi: 10. 1126/science.1134475

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    Martino, Caleb LoSchiavo, Camilla Comer-Carruthers, Kris- ten D

    Marybec Griffin, Richard J. Martino, Caleb LoSchiavo, Camilla Comer-Carruthers, Kris- ten D. Krause, Christopher B. Stults, and 31 Perry N. Halkitis. Ensuring survey research data integrity in the era of internet bots. Quality & Quantity , 56(4):2841–2852, 2022. ISSN 1573-7845. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11135-021-01252-1. URL https://doi. org/10.1007...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11135-021-01252-1 2022

  17. [17]

    Lazaro, and Myung H

    Minjoo Jung, May Jorella S. Lazaro, and Myung H. Yun. Evaluation of methodologies and measures on the usability of social robots: A systematic review, 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk

    Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2):263–291,

    work page

  19. [19]

    URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914185

    ISSN 00129682, 14680262. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914185

    work page arXiv

  20. [20]

    Choi, Soomin Lee, Sunho Jang, and Wonkyung Do

    Hyunjin Ku, Jason J. Choi, Soomin Lee, Sunho Jang, and Wonkyung Do. Design- ing shelly, a robot capable of assessing and restraining children’s robot abusing behaviors. In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , HRI ’18, page 161–162, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery. ISBN 97814503...

    work page doi:10.1145/3173386.3176973 2018

  21. [21]

    Detect- ing the corruption of online questionnaires by artificial intelligence

    Benjamin Lebrun, Sharon Temtsin, Andrew Vonasch, and Christoph Bartneck. Detect- ing the corruption of online questionnaires by artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Robotics and AI , 10, 2024. ISSN 2296-

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    URL https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10

    doi: 10.3389/frobt.2023.1277635. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10. 3389/frobt.2023.1277635

    work page doi:10.3389/frobt.2023.1277635 2023

  23. [23]

    A., Hekker, S., Stello, D., Guti ´errez-Soto, J., Handberg, R., Huber, D., et al

    Kwan Min Lee. Presence, explicated. Com- munication Theory, 14(1):27–50, 2004. ISSN 1050-3293. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x. URL https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j 2004

  24. [24]

    Kwan Min Lee, Younbo Jung, Jaywoo Kim, and Sang Ryong Kim. Are physically embod- ied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embod- iment, tactile interaction, and people’s lone- liness in human–robot interaction. Inter- national Journal of Human-Computer Stud- ies, 64(10):962–973, 2006. ISSN 1071-5819. doi: https://d...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05 2006

  25. [25]

    URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1071581906000784

    work page

  26. [26]

    The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works com- paring copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents

    Jamy Li. The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works com- paring copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 77, 01 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.01.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.01.001 2015

  27. [27]

    Bertram F. Malle. Attribution theories: How people make sense of behavior , pages 72–95. Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, US, 2011. ISBN 978-1-4443-3123-3 (Paperback); 978-1- 4443-3122-6 (Hardcover); 978-1-4443-4209-3 (PDF)

    work page 2011

  28. [28]

    Do we adopt the intentional stance toward humanoid robots? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2019

    Serena Marchesi, Davide Ghiglino, Francesca Ciardo, Jairo Perez-Osorio, Ebru Baykara, and Agnieszka Wykowska. Do we adopt the intentional stance toward humanoid robots? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2019. ISSN 1664-

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Frontiers in Psychology 9, 797 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg

    doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2019.00450. URL https://www.frontiersin. org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00450

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg 2019

  30. [30]

    Breaking the fidelity barrier: An examination of our current characterization of prototypes and an example of a mixed-fidelity success

    Michael McCurdy, Christopher Connors, Guy Pyrzak, Bob Kanefsky, and Alonso Vera. Breaking the fidelity barrier: An examination of our current characterization of prototypes and an example of a mixed-fidelity success. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’06, page 1233–1242, New York, NY, USA,

    work page

  31. [31]

    ISBN 1595933727

    Association for Computing Machin- ery. ISBN 1595933727. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1145/1124772.1124959. URL https://doi. org/10.1145/1124772.1124959

    work page doi:10.1145/1124772.1124959

  32. [32]

    Dale T. Miller. The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist , 54(12):1053–1060,

    work page

  33. [33]

    doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.12

    ISSN 1935-990X(Electronic),0003- 066X(Print). doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.12. 1053. 32

    work page doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.12 1935

  34. [34]

    MacDorman, and Norri Kageki

    Masahiro Mori, Karl F. MacDorman, and Norri Kageki. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Maga- zine, 19(2):98–100, 2012. doi: 10.1109/MRA. 2012.2192811

    work page doi:10.1109/mra 2012

  35. [35]

    When would you trust a robot? a study on trust and theory of mind in human-robot inter- actions

    Wenxuan Mou, Martina Ruocco, Debora Zanatto, and Angelo Cangelosi. When would you trust a robot? a study on trust and theory of mind in human-robot inter- actions. In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interac- tive Communication (RO-MAN) , pages 956– 962, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ RO-MAN47096.2020.9223551

    work page arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Psychological testing on the internet: New problems, old issues

    Jack Naglieri, Fritz Drasgow, Mark Schmit, Len Handler, Aurelio Prifitera, Amy Margo- lis, and Roberto Velasquez. Psychological testing on the internet: New problems, old issues. The American psychologist , 59:150– 62, 05 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.59.3.150

    work page 2004

  37. [37]

    Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R. Tauber. Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’94, page 72–78, New York, NY, USA,

    work page

  38. [38]

    ISBN 0897916506

    Association for Computing Machin- ery. ISBN 0897916506. doi: 10.1145/ 191666.191703. URL https://doi.org/10. 1145/191666.191703

    work page arXiv

  39. [39]

    Why do children abuse robots? Interaction Studies , 17:347–369, 2016

    Tatsuya Nomura, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroyoshi Kidokoro, Yoshitaka Suehiro, and Sachie Yamada. Why do children abuse robots? Interaction Studies , 17:347–369, 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.02nom

    work page doi:10.1075/is.17.3.02nom 2016

  40. [40]

    Neural Networks for Power Flow:

    Raquel Oliveira, Patricia Arriaga, Fernando Santos, Samuel Mascarenhas, and Ana Paiva. Towards prosocial design: A scoping review of the use of robots and virtual agents to trigger prosocial behaviour. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 09 2020. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106547

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106547 2020

  41. [41]

    PhD thesis, Acta Universi- tatis Upsaliensis, 2020

    Maike Paetzel-Pr¨ usmann.The Novelty in the Uncanny: Designing Interactions to Change First Impressions. PhD thesis, Acta Universi- tatis Upsaliensis, 2020. URL https://urn.kb. se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-418921

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Elizabeth Phillips, Xuan Zhao, Daniel Ull- man, and Bertram F. Malle. What is human-like? decomposing robots’ human- like appearance using the anthropomorphic robot (abot) database. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Con- ference on Human-Robot Interaction , HRI ’18, page 105–113, New York, NY, USA,

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    Losey, Marcia K

    Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450349536. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3171221.3171268. URL https://doi. org/10.1145/3171221.3171268

    work page doi:10.1145/3171221.3171268

  44. [44]

    Jonathon Phillips, Carina A

    P. Jonathon Phillips, Carina A. Hahn, Peter C. Fontana, Amy N. Yates, Kristen Greene, David A. Broniatowski, and Mark A. Przybocki. Four principles of explain- able artificial intelligence. Report NIST IR 8312, National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), 2021/09/29/ 2021. URL https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/ 2021/NIST.IR.8312.pdf

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Application of social robots in health- care: Review on characteristics, requirements, technical solutions, 2023

    Luca Ragno, Alberto Borboni, Federica Van- netti, Cinzia Amici, and Nicoletta Cusano. Application of social robots in health- care: Review on characteristics, requirements, technical solutions, 2023

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    A picture might be worth a thousand words, but it’s not always enough to evaluate robots

    Natasha Randall and Selma Sabanovic. A picture might be worth a thousand words, but it’s not always enough to evaluate robots. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE Inter- national Conference on Human-Robot Inter- action, HRI ’23, page 437–445, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450399647. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1145/35...

    work page doi:10.1145/3568162.3576970 2023

  47. [47]

    Ratner and Dale T

    Rebecca K. Ratner and Dale T. Miller. The norm of self-interest and its effects on social action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81(1):5–16, 2001. ISSN 1939-1315(Electronic),0022-3514(Print). doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.5

    work page doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.5 2001

  48. [48]

    The media equation: How people treat computers, televi- sion, and new media like real people and pla

    Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass. The media equation: How people treat computers, televi- sion, and new media like real people and pla. 33 Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press, 1996

    work page 1996

  49. [49]

    Wizard of oz studies in hri: A systematic review and new reporting guide- lines

    Laurel Riek. Wizard of oz studies in hri: A systematic review and new reporting guide- lines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction , 1, 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI. 1.1.Riek

    work page doi:10.5898/jhri 2012

  50. [50]

    Steinhaeusser, Bir- git Lugrin, and Linda Onnasch

    Eileen Roesler, Sophia C. Steinhaeusser, Bir- git Lugrin, and Linda Onnasch. The influence of visible cables and story content on per- ceived autonomy in social human &robot interaction, 2023

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Type of edu- cation affects individuals’ adoption of inten- tional stance towards robots: An eeg study

    Cecilia Roselli, Uma Navare, Francesca Cia- rdo, and Agnieszka Wykowska. Type of edu- cation affects individuals’ adoption of inten- tional stance towards robots: An eeg study. International Journal of Social Robotics , pages 1–12, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12369-023-01073-2

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Rosenthal-von der P¨ utten and Nicole C

    Astrid M. Rosenthal-von der P¨ utten and Nicole C. Kr¨ amer. How design charac- teristics of robots determine evaluation and uncanny valley related responses. Computers in Human Behavior , 36: 422–439, 2014. ISSN 0747-5632. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.066. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0747563214001940

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.066 2014

  53. [53]

    Stop ignor- ing me! on fighting the trivialization of social robots in public spaces

    Sebastian Schneider, Yuyi Liu, Kanako Tomita, and Takayuki Kanda. Stop ignor- ing me! on fighting the trivialization of social robots in public spaces. J. Hum.-Robot Inter- act., 11(2), feb 2022. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3488241. URL https://doi.org/10. 1145/3488241

    work page doi:10.1145/3488241 2022

  54. [54]

    Causal explanation, 2023

    Bradford Skow. Causal explanation, 2023. URL https://www.rep.routledge.com/ articles/thematic/causal-explanation/v-1

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    hitch- bot: The risks and rewards of a hitchhik- ing robot

    David Harris Smith and Frauke Zeller. hitch- bot: The risks and rewards of a hitchhik- ing robot. Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society , 42 (3):63–65, 2018. URL https://journal.fi/ suomenantropologi/article/view/69710

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Epis- temic vigilance

    Dan Sperber, Fabrice Cl´ ement, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson. Epis- temic vigilance. Mind & Language , 25(4): 359–393, 2010. ISSN 0268-1064. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x 2010

  57. [57]

    How well do my results generalize now? the external validity of online privacy and secu- rity surveys, 2022

    Jenny Tang, Eleanor Birrell, and Ada Lerner. How well do my results generalize now? the external validity of online privacy and secu- rity surveys, 2022

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    Thellman, A

    S. Thellman, A. Silvervarg, and T. Ziemke. Folk-psychological interpretation of human vs. humanoid robot behavior: Exploring the intentional stance toward robots. Front Psy- chol, 8:1962, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01962. URL https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01962

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01962 1962

  59. [59]

    Physical vs

    Sam Thellman, Annika Silvervarg, Agneta Gulz, and Tom Ziemke. Physical vs. vir- tual agent embodiment and effects on social interaction. In International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents , volume 10011, pages 412–415, 09 2016. ISBN 978-3- 319-47664-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-47665-0 44. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-47665-0 44

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47665-0 2016

  60. [60]

    Vonasch, R

    A. Vonasch, R. Mofradidoost, and K. Gray. People reject free money and cheap deals because they infer phantom costs. Per- sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin , in press. doi: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ fcery. URL https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ fcery

    work page doi:10.31234/osf.io/

  61. [61]

    The psychological origins of con- spiracy theory beliefs: Big events with small causes amplify conspiratorial thinking, Jan

    Andrew Vonasch, Natasha Dore, and Joelle Felicite. The psychological origins of con- spiracy theory beliefs: Big events with small causes amplify conspiratorial thinking, Jan

    work page

  62. [62]

    URL osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/3j9xg

    work page

  63. [63]

    Woods, M

    S. Woods, M. Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, and K. Dautenhahn. Comparing human robot interaction scenarios using live and video 34 based methods: towards a novel method- ological approach. In 9th IEEE Interna- tional Workshop on Advanced Motion Con- trol, 2006., pages 750–755, 2006. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1109/AMC.2006.1631754

    work page doi:10.1109/amc.2006.1631754 2006

  64. [64]

    Wortham, Andreas Theodorou, and Joanna J

    Robert H. Wortham, Andreas Theodorou, and Joanna J. Bryson. Robot trans- parency: Improving understanding of intel- ligent behaviour for designers and users. In Yang Gao, Saber Fallah, Yaochu Jin, and Constantina Lekakou, editors, Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems , pages 274–

    work page

  65. [65]

    ISBN 978-3-319-64107-2

    Springer International Publishing, 2017. ISBN 978-3-319-64107-2. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-64107-2 22

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64107-2 2017

  66. [66]

    Folk beliefs of artificial intelligence and robots

    Liying Xu, Yuyan Zhang, Feng Yu, Xiaojun Ding, and Jiahua Wu. Folk beliefs of artificial intelligence and robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2024. ISSN 1875-4805. doi: 10.1007/s12369-024-01097-2. URL https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01097-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-024-01097-2 2024

  67. [67]

    Effect of sce- nario media on elder adults’ evaluation of human-robot interaction

    Qianli Xu, Jamie Ng, Yian Ling Cheong, Odelia Tan, Ji Bin Wong, Tiong Chee Tay, and Taezoon Park. Effect of sce- nario media on elder adults’ evaluation of human-robot interaction. In 2012 RO- MAN: The 21st IEEE International Sym- posium on Robot and Human Interac- tive Communication , pages 455–462, Paris, France, 2012. IEEE. ISBN 978-1-4673- 4606-1 978-...

    work page doi:10.1109/roman.2012 2012

  68. [68]

    Methodological issues in scenario-based eval- uation of human–robot interaction

    Qianli Xu, Jamie Ng, Odelia Tan, Zhiyong Huang, Benedict Tay, and Taezoon Park. Methodological issues in scenario-based eval- uation of human–robot interaction. Inter- national Journal of Social Robotics , 7(2): 279–291, 2015. ISSN 1875-4805. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0248-9. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0248-9. 35

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-014-0248-9 2015