skip to main content
10.1145/3319502.3374778acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Why Should We Gender?: The Effect of Robot Gendering and Occupational Stereotypes on Human Trust and Perceived Competency

Published:09 March 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

The attribution of human-like characteristics onto humanoid robots has become a common practice in Human-Robot Interaction by designers and users alike. Robot gendering, the attribution of gender onto a robotic platform via voice, name, physique, or other features is a prevalent technique used to increase aspects of user acceptance of robots. One important factor relating to acceptance is user trust. As robots continue to integrate themselves into common societal roles, it will be critical to evaluate user trust in the robot's ability to perform its job. This paper examines the relationship among occupational gender-roles, user trust and gendered design features of humanoid robots. Results from the study indicate that there was no significant difference in the perception of trust in the robot's competency when considering the gender of the robot. This expands the findings found in prior efforts that suggest performance-based factors have larger influences on user trust than the robot's gender characteristics. In fact, our study suggests that perceived occupational competency is a better predictor for human trust than robot gender or participant gender. As such, gendering in robot design should be considered critically in the context of the application by designers. Such precautions would reduce the potential for robotic technologies to perpetuate societal gender stereotypes.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p13-bryant.mp4

mp4

39.6 MB

References

  1. Savela, N., Turja, T. and Oksanen, A., 2018. Social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(4), pp.493--502.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Hancock, P.A., Billings, D.R., Schaefer, K.E., Chen, J.Y., De Visser, E.J. and Parasuraman, R., 2011. A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human factors, 53(5), pp.517--527.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernotat, J., Eyssel, F. and Sachse, J., 2017, November. Shape it--the influence of robot body shape on gender perception in robots. In International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 75--84). Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Robertson, J., 2010. Gendering humanoid robots: Robo-sexism in Japan. Body & Society, 16(2), pp.1--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Fridin, M. and Belokopytov, M., 2014. Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, pp.23--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Ye, H., Jeong, H., Zhong, W., Bhatt, S., Izzetoglu, K., Ayaz, H. and Suri, R., 2019, July. The Effect of Anthropomorphization and Gender of a Robot on Human-Robot Interactions. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 357--362). Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Rea, D.J., Wang, Y. and Young, J.E., 2015, October. Check your stereotypes at the door: an analysis of gender typecasts in social human-robot interaction. In International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 554--563). Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Eyssel, F. and Hegel, F., 2012. (s)he's got the look: Gender stereotyping of robots 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), pp.2213--2230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Ghazali, A.S., Ham, J., Barakova, E.I. and Markopoulos, P., 2018. Effects of robot facial characteristics and gender in persuasive human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, p.73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Kuchenbrandt, D., Häring, M., Eichberg, J., Eyssel, F. and André, E., 2014. Keep an eye on the task! How gender typicality of tasks influence human--robot interactions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(3), pp.417--427.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Nomura, T., 2017. Robots and gender. Gender and the Genome, 1(1), pp.18--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Crowelly, C.R., Villanoy, M., Scheutzz, M. and Schermerhornz, P., 2009, October. Gendered voice and robot entities: perceptions and reactions of male and female subjects. In 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 3735--3741). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Tay, B., Jung, Y., & Park, T. (2014). When stereotypes meet robots: the double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in human--robot interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 75--84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Le Deist, F.D. and Winterton, J., 2005. What is competence?. Human resource development international, 8(1), pp.27--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Chita-Tegmark, M., Lohani, M. and Scheutz, M., 2019, March. Gender effects in perceptions of robots and humans with varying emotional intelligence. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 230--238). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. McGinn, C. and Torre, I., 2019, March. Can you tell the robot by the voice? An exploratory study on the role of voice in the perception of robots. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 211--221). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Cameron, D., Millings, A., Fernando, S., Collins, E.C., Moore, R., Sharkey, A., Evers, V. and Prescott, T., 2018. The effects of robot facial emotional expressions and gender on child--robot interaction in a field study. Connection Science, 30(4), pp.343--361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Jewell, C.I., Elprama, S.A., Jacobs, A., Esteban, P.G., Bagheri, E. and Vanderborght, B., 2019, March. Why Children Prefer Extrovert or Introvert Robots: A Pilot Study Using Pairwise Robot Comparison. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 590--591). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. He, J.C., Kang, S.K., Tse, K. and Toh, S.M., 2019. Stereotypes at work: Occupational stereotypes predict race and gender segregation in the workforce. Journal of Vocational Behavior, p.103318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Gerdes, E.P. and Garber, D.M., 1983. Sex bias in hiring: Effects of job demands and applicant competence. Sex Roles, 9(3), pp.307--319.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Rosen, B. and Jerdee, T.H., 1974. Influence of sex role stereotypes on personnel decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1), p.9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Reskin, B.F. and Roos, P.A., 2009. Job queues, gender queues: Explaining women's inroads into male occupations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mundy, L., 2018. Code Girls: The True Story of the American Women Who Secretly Broke Codes in World War II (Young Readers Edition). Little, Brown Books for Young Readers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Siegel, M., Breazeal, C. and Norton, M.I., 2009, October. Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 2563--2568). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. He, J.C., Kang, S.K., Tse, K. and Toh, S.M., 2019. Stereotypes at work: Occupational stereotypes predict race and gender segregation in the workforce. Journal of Vocational Behavior, p.103318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Wang, Y. and Young, J.E., 2014, May. Beyond pink and blue: Gendered attitudes towards robots in society. In Proceedings of Gender and IT Appropriation. Science and Practice on Dialogue-Forum for Interdisciplinary Exchange (p. 49). European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Labor Force Statistics from the Current U.S. Population Survey. US Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor and Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Humphries, W. 2014. It's really no joke. Ozy: The Daily Dose. https://www.ozy.com/acumen/stand-ups-gender-gap/4661Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Pandey, A.K., Gelin, R. and Robot, A.M.P.S.H., 2018. Pepper: The First Machine of Its Kind. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 25(3), pp.40--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. https://www.meredithkachel.com/gender-and-comedyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. https://www.womenincomedy.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Bartneck, C., Yogeeswaran, K., Ser, Q.M., Woodward, G., Sparrow, R., Wang, S. and Eyssel, F., 2018, February. Robots and racism. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 196--204). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Ogunyale, T., Bryant, D.A. and Howard, A., 2018. Does Removing Stereotype Priming Remove Bias? A Pilot Human-Robot Interaction Study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.00948.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Kay, M., Matuszek, C. and Munson, S.A., 2015, April. Unequal representation and gender stereotypes in image search results for occupations. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3819--3828). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Kessler, T.T., Larios, C., Walker, T., Yerdon, V. and Hancock, P.A., 2017. A comparison of trust measures in human--robot interaction scenarios. In Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems (pp. 353--364). Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Tamagawa, R., Watson, C.I., Kuo, I.H., MacDonald, B.A. and Broadbent, E., 2011. The effects of synthesized voice accents on user perceptions of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(3), pp.253--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Goetz, J., Kiesler, S. and Powers, A., 2003, November. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003. (pp. 55--60). Ieee.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V. and Wielinga, B., 2009, September. Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. In RO-MAN 2009-The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 528--533). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Why Should We Gender?: The Effect of Robot Gendering and Occupational Stereotypes on Human Trust and Perceived Competency

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      HRI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
      March 2020
      690 pages
      ISBN:9781450367462
      DOI:10.1145/3319502

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 9 March 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate242of1,000submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader