Judging robot ability: How people form implicit and explicit impressions of robot competence.

Robots' proliferation throughout society offers many opportunities and conveniences. However, our ability to effectively employ these machines relies heavily on our perceptions of their competence. In six studies (N = 2,660), participants played a competitive game with a robot to learn about its capabilities. After the learning experience, we measured explicit and implicit competence impressions to investigate how they reflected the learning experience. We observed two distinct dissociations between people's implicit and explicit competence impressions. Firstly, explicit impressions were uniquely sensitive to oddball behaviors. Implicit impressions only incorporated unexpected behaviors when they were moderately prevalent. Secondly, after forming a strong initial impression, explicit, but not implicit, impression updating demonstrated a positivity bias (i.e., an overvaluation of competence information). These findings suggest that the same learning experience with a robot is expressed differently at the implicit versus explicit level. We discuss implications from a social cognitive perspective, and how this work may inform emerging work on psychology toward robots. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Testing the automaticity features of the affect misattribution procedure: The roles of awareness and intentionality.

The affect misattribution procedure (AMP) is a measure of implicit evaluations, designed to index the automatic retrieval of evaluative knowledge. The AMP effect consists in participants evaluating neutral target stimuli positively when preceded by positive primes and negatively when preceded by negative primes. After multiple prior tests of intentionality, Hughes et al. (Behav Res Methods 55(4):1558-1586, 2023) examined the role of awareness in the AMP and found that AMP effects were larger when participants indicated that their response was influenced by the prime than when they did not. Here we report seven experiments (six preregistered; N = 2350) in which we vary the methodological features of the AMP to better understand this awareness effect. In Experiments 1-4, we establish variability in the magnitude of the awareness effect in response to variations in the AMP procedure. By introducing further modifications to the AMP procedure, Experiments 5-7 suggest an alternative explanation of the awareness effect, namely that awareness can be the outcome, rather than the cause, of evaluative congruency between primes and responses: Awareness effects emerged even when awareness could not have contributed to AMP effects, including when participants judged influence awareness for third parties or primes were presented post hoc. Finally, increasing the evaluative strength of the primes increased participants' tendency to misattribute AMP effects to the influence of target stimuli. Together, the present findings suggest that AMP effects can create awareness effects rather than vice versa and support the AMP's construct validity as a measure of unintentional evaluations of which participants are also potentially unaware.

Trait attribution explains human-robot interactions.

Clark and Fischer (C&F) claim that trait attribution has major limitations in explaining human-robot interactions. We argue that the trait attribution approach can explain the three issues posited by C&F. We also argue that the trait attribution approach is parsimonious, as it assumes that the same mechanisms of social cognition apply to human-robot interaction.