Abstract
This study aimed to examine whether boys and girls demonstrate inclinations that drive them to select interactions with humanoid robots that share psychological and physical similarities with them and display gender characteristics aligning with their own. Forty-four students, aged 10 to 13, from two distinct primary school classes, engaged in a study where they interacted in a CAVE with a simulated humanoid robot with a gender of their choice, selected between male or female at the beginning of the procedure. They were instructed to assist the experimenter in the robot’s design process. Subsequently, participants were assessed for any gender stereotypes.
The results indicate that children generally exhibit a preference for interacting with robots of their own gender rather than those of a different gender. Notably, the study suggests that the perceived level of agency assigned to gendered robots may be influenced by the extent of hostile sexism. Specifically, an increase in hostile sexism corresponds to an augmented perception of male robots as possessing agentic qualities. Conversely, a different pattern, only marginally significant, seems to emerge in relation to benevolent sexism, where an increase in benevolent sexism is associated with a heightened perception of female robots as agentic technology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
1Since preferred robot gender was associated with participant gender, we never entered these predictors together in the analyses.
References
Benitti, F.B.V.: Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput. Educ.. Educ. 58(3), 978–988 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
Beran, T.N., Ramirez-Serrano, A., Kuzyk, R., Fior, M., Nugent, S.: Understanding how children understand robots: perceived animism in child–robot interaction. Int. J. Hum. Comput. 69, 539–550 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.04.003
Bernotat, J., Eyssel, F., Sachse, J.: Shape it – The influence of robot body shape on gender perception in robots. In: Kheddar, A., et al. (eds.) Social Robotics, pp. 75–84. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70022-9_8
Cameron, D., et al.: Congratulations, it’s a boy! Bench-marking children’s perceptions of the robokind Zeno-R25. In: Alboul, L., Damian, D., Aitken, J.M. (eds.) Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems, pp. 33–39. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40379-3_4
Choi, N., Fuqua, D.R., Newman, J.L.: Exploratory and confirmatory studies of the structure of the bem sex role inventory short form with two divergent samples. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 69, 696–705 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409332218
Eyssel, F., Hegel, F.: (S)He’s got the look: gender stereotyping of robots. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42(9), 2213–2230 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00937.x
Fagot, B.I., Leinbach, M.D., Hagan, R.: Gender labeling and the adoption of sex-typed behaviors. Dev. Psychol. 22(4), 440–443 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.4.440
Kahn, P.H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Freier, N., Severson, R.L., et al.: Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now: children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev. Psychol. 48(2), 303–314 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027033
Kuchenbrandt, D., Häring, M., Eichberg, J., Eyssel, F., André, E.: Keep an eye on the task! How gender typicality of tasks influence human-robot interactions. Int. J. of Soc. Robot 6, 417–427 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0244-0
Ladwig, R.C., Ferstl, E.C.: What’s in a name? An online survey on gender stereotyping of humanoid social robots. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Gender & IT., pp. 67–69. Association for Computing Machine, New York (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3196839.3196851
Lemus, S., et al.: Elaboración y validación del inventario de sexismo ambivalente para adolescentes [Elaboration and validation of ambivalent sexism Inventory for adolescents]. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. Clin. Health Psychol. 8(2), 537–562 (2008)
Martin, C.L., Wood, C.H., Little, J.K.: The development of gender stereotype components. Child Dev. 61(6), 1891–1904 (1990). https://doi.org/10.2307/1130845
Nass, C., Moon, Y.: Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56, 81–103 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
Nomura, T.: Robots and gender. In: Legato, M.J. (ed.) Principles of Gender Specific Medicine, 3rd edn., pp. 695–703. Academic Press, SanDiego (2017)
Okanda, M., Taniguchi, K.: Is a robot a boy? Japanese children’s and adults’ gender-attribute bias toward robots and its implications for education on gender stereotypes. Cogn. Dev.. Dev. 58, 101044 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2021.101044
Ozogul, G., Johnson, A.M., Atkinson, R.K., Reisslein, M.: Investigating the impact of pedagogical agent gender matching and learner choice on learning outcomes and perceptions. Comput. Educ.. Educ. 67, 36–50 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.006
Parlangeli, O., Palmitesta, P., Bracci, M., Marchigiani, E., Guidi, S.: Gender role stereotypes at work in humanoid robots. Behav Inf Technol 42(3), 316–327 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2150565
Perugia, G., Lisy, D.: Robot’s gendering trouble: a scoping review of gendering humanoid robots and its effects on HRI. Int J of Soc Robotics 15, 1725–1753 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01061-6
Perugia, G., Guidi, S., Bicchi, M., Parlangeli, O.: The shape of our bias: perceived age and gender in the humanoid robots of the ABOT database. In: 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), IEEE Press, pp. 110–119 (2022). https://doi.org/10.5555/3523760.3523779
Reich-Stiebert, N., Eyssel, F. (Ir)relevance of gender? On the influence of gender stereotypes on learning with a robot. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 166–176 (2017).
Rubegni, E., Landoni, M., Jaccheri, L.: Design for change with and for children: how to design digital storytelling tool to raise stereotypes awareness. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pp. 505–518 (2020).
Sandygulova, A., O’Hare, G.M.P.: Investigating the impact of gender segregation within observational pretend play interaction. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), IEEE Press, pp. 399–406 (2016).
Sandygulova, A., O’Hare, G.M.P.: Age - and gender - based differences in children’s interactions with a gender-matching robot. Int J of Soc Robotics 10, 687–700 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0472-9
Siegel, M., Breazeal, C., Norton, M.I.: Persuasive robotics: the influence of robot gender on human behaviour. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ International conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp. 2563–2568 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2009.5354116
Song-Nichols, K., Young, A.: Gendered robots can change children’s gender stereotyping. In: Proceedings of CogSci2020, pp. 2480–2485 (2020).
Søraa, R.A.: Mechanical genders: how do humans gender robots? Gender Technol Dev 21(1–2), 99–115 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2017.1385320
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.. Hum. Behav. 38, 75–84 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.014
Toh, L.P.E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P.W., Chen, I.M., Yeo, S.H.: A Review on the use of robots in education and young children. J. Educ. Techno. Soc. 19(2), pp. 148–163 (2016). http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.2.148
Waytz, A., et al.: Who sees human? the stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. Psychol. Sci. 5(3), 219–232 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336
Widder, D.G.: Gender and Robots: A Literature Review. (2022). arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04716.
Zabel, S., Otto, S.: Bias in, bias out – the similarity-attraction effect between chatbot designers and users. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCII 2021. LNCS, vol. 12764, pp. 184–197. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78468-3_13
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all pupils, as well as their teachers, who participated in this study. This study was partially realized with funds from the PNRR (project THE: spoke M_9.2.1) and PRIN (project FROB, 2022).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Disclosure of Interests
The Authors Have no Competing Interests to Declare that Are Relevant to the Content of This Article.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Parlangeli, O. et al. (2024). Will You Work with Us to Design a Robot? Boys’ and Girls’ Choices of Anthropomorphic Robots According to Their Gender. In: Marcus, A., Rosenzweig, E., Soares, M.M. (eds) Design, User Experience, and Usability. HCII 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14713. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61353-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61353-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-61352-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-61353-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)