Human–Robot Intimacy: Acceptance of Robots as Intimate Companions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Terminology
3. Perceived Benefits of ICRs
4. Acceptance and Intimacy of ICRs
4.1. Robot and User Characteristics
4.1.1. Gender
4.1.2. Age
4.1.3. Personality
4.2. Robotic Touch
4.3. Cultural Influences on ICR Acceptability
5. Possible Caveats of ICRs
5.1. Technological Implications
5.2. Psychological and Behavioral Implications of ICR Use
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Levy, D. Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships; Harper Perennial: New York, NY, USA, 2009; p. 352. [Google Scholar]
- Massa, N.; Bisconti, P.; Nardi, D. The psychological implications of companion robots: A theoretical framework and an experimental setup. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2023, 15, 2101–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organization. Social Isolation and Loneliness among Older People: Advocacy Brief; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Twenge, J.M.; Haidt, J.; Blake, A.B.; McAllister, C.; Lemon, H.; Le Roy, A. Worldwide increases in adolescent loneliness. J. Adolesc. 2021, 93, 257–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moberg, R.; Khan, A. Humanoid Robot Acceptance: A Concise Review of Literature. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 4–16 December 2022; pp. 1223–1228. [Google Scholar]
- Hanson, K.R.; Locatelli, C.C. From sex dolls to sex robots and beyond: A narrative review of theoretical and empirical research on human-like and personified sex tech. Curr. Sex. Health Rep. 2022, 14, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Kim, S.; Kim, S.; Lee, E.; Heo, Y.; Hwang, C.Y.; Choi, Y.Y.; Kong, H.J.; Ryu, H.; Lee, H. Companion robots for older adults: Rodgers’ evolutionary concept analysis approach. Intell. Serv. Robot. 2021, 14, 729–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Uluer, P.; Kose, H.; Oz, B.K.; Aydinalev, T.C.; Barkana, D.E. Towards an affective robot companion for audiology rehabilitation: How does pepper feel today? In Proceedings of the 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Naples, Italy, 31 August–4 September 2020; pp. 567–572. [Google Scholar]
- Kuo, I.H.; Rabindran, J.M.; Broadbent, E.; Lee, Y.I.; Kerse, N.; Stafford, R.M.; MacDonald, B.A. Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. In Proceedings of the RO-MAN 2009—The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Toyama, Japan, 27 September–2 October 2009; pp. 214–219. [Google Scholar]
- Johal, W.; Pesty, S.; Calvary, G. Towards companion robots behaving with style. In Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Edinburgh, UK, 25–29 August 2014; pp. 1063–1068. [Google Scholar]
- Sternberg, R.J. A triangular theory of love. Psychol. Rev. 1986, 93, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fosch-Villaronga, E.; Poulsen, A. Sex robots in care: Setting the stage for a discussion on the potential use of sexual robot technologies for persons with disabilities. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Boulder, CO, USA, 8–11 March 2021; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Hook, M.K.; Gerstein, L.H.; Detterich, L.; Gridley, B. How close are we? Measuring intimacy and examining gender differences. J. Couns. Dev. 2003, 81, 462–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, H.; MacDonald, B.; Kerse, N.; Broadbent, E. The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: A randomized controlled trial. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2013, 14, 661–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koumpis, A.; Gees, T. Sex with robots: A not-so-niche market for disabled and older persons. Paladyn. J. Behav. Robot. 2020, 11, 228–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubé, S.; Anctil, D. Foundations of Erobotics. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2021, 13, 1205–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, A. Considering sex robots for older adults with cognitive impairments. J. Med. Ethics 2021, 47, 37–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheutz, M.; Arnold, T. Are we ready for sex robots? In Proceedings of the 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Christchurch, New Zealand, 7–10 March 2016; pp. 351–358. [Google Scholar]
- Marečková, A.; Androvičová, R.; Bártová, K.; Krejčová, L.; Klapilová, K. Men with Paraphilic Interests and Their Desire to Interact with a Sex Robot. J. Future Robot. Life 2022, 3, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ara, G.; Veggi, S.; Farrington, D.P. Sexbots as Synthetic Companions: Comparing Attitudes of Official Sex Offenders and Non-Offenders. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2022, 14, 479–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birnie-Porter, C.; Lydon, J.E. A prototype approach to understanding sexual intimacy through its relationship to intimacy. Pers. Relatsh. 2013, 20, 236–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubé, S.; Santaguida, M.; Zhu, C.Y.; Di Tomasso, S.; Hu, R.; Cormier, G.; Vachon, D. Sex robots and personality: It is more about sex than robots. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 136, 107403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordmo, M.; Næss, J.Ø.; Husøy, M.F.; Arnestad, M.N. Friends, lovers or nothing: Men and women differ in their perceptions of sex robots and platonic love robots. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 501020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oleksy, T.; Wnuk, A. Do women perceive sex robots as threatening? The role of political views and presenting the robot as a female-vs male-friendly product. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 117, 106664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, V.; Rooksby, M.; Cross, E.S. Social robots on a global stage: Establishing a role for culture during human–robot interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2021, 13, 1307–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edirisinghe, C.; Cheok, A.D.; Khougali, N. Perceptions and Responsiveness to Intimacy with Robots; A User Evaluation. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2018, 10715, 138–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rempel, J.K.; Holmes, J.G.; Zanna, M.P. Trust in close relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1985, 49, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deniztoker, Z. Lovotics and the big-five: An exploration of the psychology of human-robot intimacy. In Proceedings of the 7th International Student Research Conference—ISRC, Prague, Czech Republic, 7–8 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Appel, M.; Marker, C.; Mara, M. Otakuism and the appeal of sex robots. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tay, B.; Jung, Y.; Park, T. When stereotypes meet robots: The double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in human–robot interaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 38, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Larivière, B. The more extroverted the better? Unraveling the complex relationship between service robots’ personality and the service robot experience. Psychol. Mark. 2023, 40, 2370–2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salem, M.; Ziadee, M.; Sakr, M. Marhaba, how may I help you? Effects of politeness and culture on robot acceptance and anthropomorphization. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Bielefeld, Germany, 3–6 March 2014; pp. 74–81. [Google Scholar]
- Bishop, L.; van Maris, A.; Dogramadzi, S.; Zook, N. Social robots: The influence of human and robot characteristics on acceptance. Paladyn J. Behav. Robot. 2019, 10, 346–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundar, S.S.; Jung, E.H.; Waddell, T.F.; Kim, K.J. Cheery companions or serious assistants? Role and demeanor congruity as predictors of robot attraction and use intentions among senior citizens. Int. J. Human-Computer Stud. 2017, 97, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, A.; van Dijk, B.; Evers, V. Knowing me knowing you: Exploring effects of culture and context on perception of robot personality. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Intercultural Collaboration (ICIC’12), New York, NY, USA, 21–23 March 2012; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 133–136. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, X.; Shiomi, M.; Minato, T.; Ishiguro, H. How can Robots make people feel intimacy through Touch? J. Robot. Mechatron. 2020, 32, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willemse, C.J.; Toet, A.; Van Erp, J.B. Affective and behavioral responses to robot-initiated social touch: Toward understanding the opportunities and limitations of physical contact in human–robot interaction. Front. ICT 2017, 4, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins English Dictionary. Waifu. Available online: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/waifu (accessed on 10 June 2024).
- Castelo, N.; Sarvary, M. Cross-cultural differences in comfort with humanlike robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2022, 14, 1865–1873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakura, O. Robot and ukiyo-e: Implications to cultural varieties in human–robot relationships. AI Soc. 2022, 37, 1563–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mori, M.; MacDorman, K.F.; Kageki, N. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2012, 19, 98–100. [Google Scholar]
- Mundy, P.; Jarrold, W. Infant joint attention, neural networks and social cognition. Neural Netw. 2010, 23, 985–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galaitsi, S.E.; Hendren, C.O.; Trump, B.; Linkov, I. Sex robots—A harbinger for emerging AI risk. Front. Artif. Intell. 2019, 2, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bendel, O. Love dolls and sex robots in unproven and unexplored fields of application. Paladyn J. Behav. Robot. 2021, 12, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Döring, N.; Pöschl, S. Sex toys, sex dolls, sex robots: Our under-researched bed-fellows. Sexologies 2018, 27, e51–e55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borenstein, J.; Arkin, R. Robots, ethics, and intimacy: The need for scientific research. In On the Cognitive, Ethical, and Scientific Dimensions of Artificial Intelligence: Themes from IACAP 2016; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 299–309. [Google Scholar]
- Nyholm, S.; Frank, L.E. It loves me, it loves me not: Is it morally problematic to design sex robots that appear to love their owners? Techne Res. Philos. Technol. 2019, 23, 402–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alesich, S.; Rigby, M. Gendered robots: Implications for our humanoid future. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 2017, 36, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hancock, E. Should society accept sex robots? Changing my perspective on sex robots through researching the future of intimacy. Paladyn J. Behav. Robot. 2020, 11, 428–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buss, D.M.; Haselton, M. The evolution of jealousy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005, 9, 506–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fincham, F.D.; May, R.W. Infidelity in romantic relationships. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2017, 13, 70–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothstein, N.J.; Connolly, D.H.; de Visser, E.J.; Phillips, E. Perceptions of infidelity with sex robots. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Boulder, CO, USA, 8–11 March 2021; pp. 129–139. [Google Scholar]
- Winkle, K.; Mulvihill, N. Anticipating the Use of Robots in Domestic Abuse: A Typology of Robot Facilitated Abuse to Support Risk Assessment and Mitigation in Human-Robot Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Boulder, CO, USA, 11–14 March 2024; pp. 781–790. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bertoni, S.; Klaes, C.; Pilacinski, A. Human–Robot Intimacy: Acceptance of Robots as Intimate Companions. Biomimetics 2024, 9, 566. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics9090566
Bertoni S, Klaes C, Pilacinski A. Human–Robot Intimacy: Acceptance of Robots as Intimate Companions. Biomimetics. 2024; 9(9):566. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics9090566
Chicago/Turabian StyleBertoni, Sophia, Christian Klaes, and Artur Pilacinski. 2024. "Human–Robot Intimacy: Acceptance of Robots as Intimate Companions" Biomimetics 9, no. 9: 566. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics9090566
APA StyleBertoni, S., Klaes, C., & Pilacinski, A. (2024). Human–Robot Intimacy: Acceptance of Robots as Intimate Companions. Biomimetics, 9(9), 566. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics9090566