Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Saving Private Robot: Risks and Advantages of Anthropomorphism in Agent-Soldier Teams

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hybrid military teams, formed by human warfighters and autonomous artificial agents, represent the technological future of Defence operations. Both the potential and the inherent limitations of current technology are well-known, but the cognitive–behavioral and motivational aspects of human–robot interaction on the battlefield have yet to be systematically investigated. To lay the theoretical and methodological foundation of this scientific investigation, our position paper critically examines how the military personnel’s spontaneous tendency to anthropomorphize artificial autonomous agents can affect operations of hybrid military teams in multiple ways. We will argue that the psychological impact of anthropomorphism on military personnel is neither easily avoidable nor necessarily detrimental. Correctly identifying the multi-level cognitive mechanisms that underpin implicit and explicit forms of anthropomorphism allows us to increase the efficacy of human–agent interaction. We will argue that, within hybrid teams, the capability to communicate with teammates, allies, civilians, and adversaries relies on embodied social cognition processes that are inherently geared toward anthropomorphism and leverage its effects. By updating both the design of autonomous artificial agents and the training of human troops to account for these processes, their reciprocal coordination can be augmented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barnes MJ, Jentsch FJ (eds) (2010) Human–robot interactions in future military operations. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  2. Galliott JC (2013) Unmanned systems and war’s end: prospects for lasting peace. Dyn Int 8:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  3. Scharre P (2018) Army of none: autonomous weapons and the future of war. WW Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Singer PW (2009) Wired for war: the robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Swiderska A, Küster D (2018) Avatars in pain: visible harm enhances mind perception in humans and robots. Perception. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006618809919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Abbass HA, Scholz J, Reid DJ (2018) Foundations of trusted autonomy: an introduction. In: Abbass HA, Scholz J, Reid DJ (eds) Foundations of trusted autonomy. Springer, Berlin

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen JY, Anthony C, Selkowitz R, Stowers K, Lakhmani SG, Barnes MJ (2017) Human-autonomy teaming and agent transparency. In: Proceedings of the companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI ’17

  8. Breazeal C, Dautenhahn K, Kanda T (2016) Social robotics. In: Sicialian B, Khatib O (eds) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer International, Cham, pp 1935–1972

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Cummings ML (2017) Artificial intelligence and the future of warfare. International Security Department and US and the Americas Programme, Chatham House—The Royal Institute of International Affairs, January 2017

  10. Djuric A, Urbanic R, Rickli J (2016) A Framework for collaborative robot (CoBot) integration in advanced manufacturing systems. SAE Int J Mater Manuf 9(2):457–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Foster Thompson L, Gillan DJ (2010) Social factors in human–robot interaction. In: Barnes M, Jentsch F (eds), Human–robot interactions in future military operations. Routledge, London, pp 67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Galliott JC (2016) Defending Australia in the digital age: toward full spectrum defence. Defence Stud 16:157–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Złotowski JA, Proudfoot D, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2015) Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. Adv Robot Int J Robot Soc Jpn 7(3):347–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoffman G (2012) Embodied cognition for autonomous interactive robots. Top Cogn Sci 4(4):759–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Galliot JC (2012) Uninhabited systems in the civilian realm: some ethical concerns. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 31:13–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoffman G, Breazeal C (2004) Collaboration in human–robot teams. In: AIAA 1st Intelligent systems technical conference. Infotech@Aerospace Conferences, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

  17. Barnes M, Evans AW (2010) Soldier–robot teaming: an overview. In: Barnes M, Jentsch F (eds) Human–robot interactions in future military operations. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  18. Galliott JC (2018) The soldier’s tolerance for autonomous systems. Paladyn J Behav Robot 9(1):124–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zlotowski JA (2015) Understanding anthropomorphism in the interaction between users and robots. Doctoral thesis, University of Canterbury

  20. Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):177–190

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Zawieska K (2015) Do robots equal humans? Anthropomorphic terminology in LAWS. In: 2015 Meeting of experts on lethal autonomous weapons systems, 13–17 Apr 2015

  22. Carpenter J (2013) Just doesn’t look right: exploring the impact of humanoid robot integration into explosive ordnance disposal teams. In: Luppicini R (ed) Handbook of research on technoself. Identity in a technological society. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 609–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Galliott J, Macintosh D, Ohlin JD (2021) Introduction. In: Galliott J, MacIntosh D, Ohlin JD (eds) Lethal autonomous weapons: re-examining the law and ethics of robotic warfare. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Sharkey N (2012) The evitability of autonomous robot warfare. Int Rev Red Cross 94(886):787–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shim J, Arkin R, Pettinatti M (2017) An intervening ethical governor for a robot mediator in patient–caregiver relationship: implementation and evaluation. In: 2017 IEEE International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 2936–2942

  26. Slocombe G (2019) Autonomous warrior: major air, land and sea exercise, Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter, September 26. https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/autonomous-warrior-2018/. Accessed 1 May 2019

  27. Hill SG, Barber D, Evans WA (2015) Achieving the vision of effective soldier–robot teaming. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction extended abstracts—HRI’15 extended abstracts

  28. Cosenzo KA, Barnes MJ (2010) Human–robot interaction research for current and future military applications: from the laboratory to the field. In: Unmanned systems technology XII

  29. Dacey M (2017) Anthropomorphism as cognitive bias. Philos Sci 84(5):1152–1164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Damiano L, Dumouchel P (2018) Anthropomorphism in human–robot co-evolution. Front Psychol 9(March):117

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 362(1480):679–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. DiSalvo C, Gemperle F (2003) From seduction to fulfillment: the use of anthropomorphic form in design. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces. DPPI ’03. ACM, New York, pp 67–72

  33. Endsley MR (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37(1):32–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Epley N, Waytz A, Akalis S, Cacioppo JT (2008) When we need a human: motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Soc Cogn 26(2):143–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Eyssel FA, Pfundmair M (2015) Predictors of psychological anthropomorphization, mind perception, and the fulfillment of social needs: a case study with a zoomorphic robot. In: 2015 24th IEEE International symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN)

  37. Fink J (2012) Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human–robot interaction. In: Ge SS, Khatib O, Cabibihan JJ, Simmons R, Williams MA (eds) Social robotics. ICSR 2012. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7621. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_20

  38. Gallagher S (2008) 22—Understanding others: embodied social cognition. In: Calvo P, Gomila A (eds) Handbook of cognitive science. Elsevier, San Diego, pp 437–452

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Galliott JC (2015) Military robots: mapping the moral landscape. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  40. Garreau J (2007) Bots on the ground in the field of battle (or even above it): robots are a soldier’s best friend. Washington Post. May 6

  41. Harrison MA, Hall AE (2010) Anthropomorphism, empathy, and perceived communicative ability vary with phylogenetic relatedness to humans. J Soc Evol Cult Psychol JSEC 4(1):34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Heijnen S, de Kleijn R, Hommel B (2018) The impact of human–robot synchronization on anthropomorphization. Front Psychol 9:2607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hoffman G (2007) Ensemble: fluency and embodiment for robots acting with humans. Ph.D. Media Arts and Sciences, September, MIT

  44. Hoffman G, Breazeal C (2007) Effects of anticipatory action on human–robot teamwork efficiency, fluency, and perception of team. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international

  45. Turnbull G (2019) Why the British army tested robots in muddy fields, C4ISRnet, January 11, 2019. Accessed 1st May 2019

  46. Mirrless T (2016) Hearts and mines. UBC Press, The US Empire Cultural Industry, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  47. Nyholm S (2018) The ethics of crashes with self-driving cars: a roadmap II. Philos Compass 13:e12506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Obaid M, Kistler F, Kasparavičiūtė G, Yantaç AY, Fjeld M (2016) How would you gesture navigate a drone?: A user-centered approach to control a drone. In: Proceedings of the 20th international academic mindtrek conference, AcademicMindtrek ’16. ACM, New York, pp 113–121

  49. Ono T, Imai M, Ishiguro H (2000) Anthropomorphic communications in the emerging relationship between humans and robots. In: Proceedings 9th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE RO-MAN 2000 (Cat. No.00TH8499)

  50. Riek LD, Rabinowitch T, Chakrabarti B, Robinson P (2009) How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In: 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 245–246

  51. Salem M, Eyssel F, Rohlfing K, Kopp S, Joublin F (2011) Effects of gesture on the perception of psychological anthropomorphism: a case study with a humanoid robot. In: Mutlu B, Bartneck C, Ham J, Evers V, Kanda T (eds) Social robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Sandoval EB, Mubin O, Obaid M (2014) Human robot interaction and fiction: a contradiction. In: Beetz M, Johnston B, Williams MA (eds) Social robotics. ICSR 2014. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 8755. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11973-1_6

  53. Servais V (2018) Anthropomorphism in human–animal interactions: a pragmatist view. Front Psychol 9(December):2590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Severson RL, Shailee RW (2018) Imagining others’ minds: the positive relation between children’s role play and anthropomorphism. Front Psychol 9(November):2140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shen S, Slovak P, Jung MF (2018) ‘Stop. I see a conflict happening’ a robot mediator for young children’s interpersonal conflict resolution. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 69–77

  56. Sparrow R (2016) Robots and respect: assessing the case against autonomous weapon systems. Ethics Int Affairs 30(1):93–116

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  57. Sparrow R, Howard M (2017) When human beings are like drunk robots: driverless vehicles, ethics, and the future of transport. Transport Res Part C Emerg Technol 80(July):206–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Tahiroglu D, Taylor M (2018) Anthropomorphism, social understanding, and imaginary companions. Br J Dev Psychol 37:284–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Tucker P (2020) An AI just beat a human F-16 Pilot in a dogfight—again. Defense One online. https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2020/08/ai-just-beat-human-f-16-pilot-dogfight-again/167872/. Accessed 20 Aug 2020

  60. Urquiza-Haas EG, Kotrschal K (2015) The mind behind anthropomorphic thinking: attribution of mental states to other species. Anim Behav 109(November):167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Bartneck C, Kanda T, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (2009) Does the design of a robot influence its animacy and perceived intelligence? Int J Soc Robot 1:195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):71–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Carpenter J, Eliot M, Schultheis D (2006) The uncanny valley: making human–nonhuman distinctions. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on cognitive science, pp 81–82

  64. Waytz A, Cacioppo JT, Epley N (2014) Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspect Psychol Sci 5(3):219–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Airenti G (2018) The development of anthropomorphism in interaction: intersubjectivity, imagination, and theory of mind. Front Psychol 9(November):2136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Złotowski JA, Sumioka H, Eyssel F, Nishio S, Bartneck C, Ishiguro H (2018) Model of dual anthropomorphism: the relationship between the media equation effect and implicit anthropomorphism. Int J Soc Robot 10:701–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Airenti G (2015) The cognitive bases of anthropomorphism: from relatedness to empathy. Int J Soc Robot 7(1):117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Vertesi J (2012) Seeing like a Rover: visualization, embodiment, and interaction on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission. Soc Stud Sci 42(3):393–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Baggiarini B (2015) Drone warfare and the limits of sacrifice. J Int Polit Theory 11(1):128–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Bakardjieva M (2015) Rationalizing sociality: an unfinished script for socialbots. Inf Soc 31(3):244256. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2015.1020197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Cappuccio ML, Sandoval EB, Mubin O, Obaid M, Velonaki M (2020) Can robots make us better humans? Virtuous robotics and the good life with artificial agents. Int J Soc Robot 2020:6

    Google Scholar 

  72. Cappuccio ML (2015) Inference or familiarity? Synth Philos 58(2):253–272

    Google Scholar 

  73. Cappuccio ML, Peeters A, McDonald W (2019) Sympathy for Dolores: moral consideration for robots based on virtue and recognition. Philos Technol (February) 33(1):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  74. Wodehouse A, Brisco R, Broussard E, Duffy A (2018) Pareidolia: characterizing facial anthropomorphism and its implications for product design. J Des Res 16(2):83–98

    Google Scholar 

  75. Chen JY, Quinn S, Wright J, Barnes MJ, Barber D, Adams D (2013) Human-agent teaming for robot management in multitasking environments. In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International conference on human–robot interaction (HRI)

  76. Chérif L, Wood V, Marois A, Labonté K, Vachon F (1918) Multitasking in the military: cognitive consequences and potential solutions. Appl Cogn Psychol 32(4):429–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Cauchard JR, Zhai KY, Spadafora M, Landay JA (2016) Emotion encoding in human–drone interaction. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), Christchurch, 2016, pp 263–270

Download references

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the Minerva Initiative under Award Number FA9550-18-1-0039. The work has also received the support of the Australian Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Values in Defence and Security Technology Group, School of Engineering and Information Technology, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia

    Massimiliano L. Cappuccio & Jai C. Galliott

  2. AI & Robotics Lab, United Arab Emirates University, Abu Dhabi, UAE

    Massimiliano L. Cappuccio

  3. Creative Robotics Lab, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia

    Eduardo B. Sandoval

Authors
  1. Massimiliano L. Cappuccio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jai C. Galliott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eduardo B. Sandoval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Massimiliano L. Cappuccio.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cappuccio, M.L., Galliott, J.C. & Sandoval, E.B. Saving Private Robot: Risks and Advantages of Anthropomorphism in Agent-Soldier Teams. Int J of Soc Robotics 14, 2135–2148 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00755-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00755-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation