Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 21:3 (2020) ► pp.329–352

“Alexa, how are you feeling today?”

Mind perception, smart speakers, and uncanniness

| Temple University , USA
| University of Cambridge , UK
| Temple University , USA

‘Smart’ devices are becoming increasingly ubiquitous. While these sophisticated machines are useful for various purposes, they sometimes evoke feelings of eeriness or discomfort that constitute uncanniness, a much-discussed phenomenon in robotics research. Adult participants (N = 115) rated the uncanniness of a hypothetical future smart speaker that was described as possessing the mental capacities for experience, agency, neither, or both. The novel condition prompting participants to attribute both agency and experience to the speaker filled an important theoretical gap in the literature. Consistent with the mind perception hypothesis of uncanniness (MPH; Gray & Wegner, 2012), participants in the with-experience condition rated the device significantly higher in uncanniness than those in the control condition and the with-agency condition. Participants in the with-both (experience and agency) condition also rated the device higher in uncanniness than those in the control condition and the with-agency condition, although this latter difference only approached statistical significance.

Keywords: robotics, uncanny valley, mind perception, anthropomorphization, artificial intelligence, smart speakers
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Uncanniness and the uncanny valley
    • 1.2The mind perception hypothesis of uncanniness
    • 1.3Current study
      • 1.3.1Hypotheses
      • 1.3.2Exploratory analysis
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Procedure
    • 2.3Plan of analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Manipulation checks
    • 3.2Primary analysis
    • 3.3Exploratory analysis
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Exploratory analysis
    • 4.2Limitations and future directions
    • 4.3Conclusions
  • Open science
  • Supplementary materials
    • SM1.Paragraph describing smart speakers and listing their current features; accompanying images of currently popular smart speakers (presented to all participants)
    • SM2.Items presented to participants (dependent variables)
      • Primary analyses
      • Secondary analysis
    • SM3.Regression analyses for uncanniness index
  • References
Published online: 9 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.19015.tay
References
Appel, M., Izydorczyk, D., Weber, S., Mara, M., & Lischetzke, T.
(2020) The uncanny of mind in a machine: Humanoid robots as tools, agents, and experiencers. Computers in Human Behavior, 1021, 274–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apple
(2018, January 23). HomePod arrives February 9, available to order this friday [Press release]. Retrieved from [URL]
Brink, K. A., Gray, K., & Wellman, H. M.
(2019) Creepiness creeps in: Uncanny valley feelings are acquired in childhood. Child Development, 901, 1202–1214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, E., Kumar, V., Li, X., Sollers, J., III, Stafford, R. Q., MacDonald, B. A., & Wegner, D. M.
(2013) Robots with display screens: a robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PloS One, 81, e72589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, E., Kuo, I. H., Lee, Y. I., Rabindran, J., Kerse, N., Stafford, R., & MacDonald, B. A.
(2010) Attitudes and reactions to a healthcare robot. Telemedicine and e-Health, 161, 608–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ciechanowski, L., Przegalinska, A., Magnuski, M., & Gloor, P.
(2019) In the shades of the uncanny valley: An experimental study of human–chatbot interaction. Future Generation Computer Systems, 921, 539–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crandall, C. S., & Sherman, J. W.
(2016) On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 661, 93–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creed, C., & Beale, R.
(2012) User interactions with an affective nutritional coach. Interacting with Computers, 241, 339–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creed, C., Beale, R., & Cowan, B.
(2015) The impact of an embodied agent’s emotional expressions over multiple interactions. Interacting with Computers, 271, 172–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deng, E., Mutlu, B., & Mataric, M. J.
(2019) Embodiment in socially interactive robots. Foundations and Trends in Robotics, 71, 251–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrey, A. E., Burleigh, T. J., & Fenske, M. J.
(2015) Stimulus-category competition, inhibition, and affective devaluation: A novel account of the uncanny valley. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M.
(2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 3151, 619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, K., Jenkins, A. C., Heberlein, A. S., & Wegner, D. M.
(2011) Distortions of mind perception in psychopathology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1081, 477–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M.
(2012) Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition, 1251, 125–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A.
(2012) Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 231, 101–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ho, C. C., MacDorman, K. F., & Pramono, Z. D.
(2008, March). Human emotion and the uncanny valley: A GLM, MDS, and Isomap analysis of robot video ratings. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 169–176). Amsterdam, the Netherlands. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kätsyri, J., Förger, K., Mäkäräinen, M., & Takala, T.
(2015) A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: Support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kawabe, T., Sasaki, K., Ihaya, K., & Yamada, Y.
(2017) When categorization-based stranger avoidance explains the uncanny valley: A comment on MacDorman and Chattopadhyay (2016). Cognition, 1611, 129–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knobe, J., & Prinz, J.
(2008) Intuitions about consciousness: Experimental studies. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 71, 67–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupferberg, A., Glasauer, S., Huber, M., Rickert, M., Knoll, A., & Brandt, T.
(2011) Biological movement increases acceptance of humanoid robots as human partners in motor interaction. AI & Society, 261, 339–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lau, J., Zimmerman, B., & Schaub, F.
(2018) Alexa, are you listening? Privacy perceptions, concerns and privacy-seeking behaviors with smart speakers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 21, 102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, B., & Sundar, S. S.
(2018) Should machines express sympathy and empathy? Experiments with a health advice chatbot. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 211, 625–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, J. G. Jr., Bradlow, E. T., Huber, J. C., & Lehmann, D. R.
(2015) Reflections on the replication corner: In praise of conceptual replications. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 321, 333–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDorman, K. F., & Chattopadhyay, D.
(2016) Reducing consistency in human realism increases the uncanny valley effect; increasing category uncertainty does not. Cognition, 1461, 190–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDorman, K. F., & Entezari, S. O.
(2015) Individual differences predict sensitivity to the uncanny valley. Interaction Studies, 161, 141–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDorman, K. F., Green, R. D., Ho, C. C., & Koch, C. T.
(2009) Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 251, 695–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H.
(2006) The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies, 71, 297–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDorman, K. F., Vasudevan, S. K., & Ho, C. C.
(2009) Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI & Society, 231, 485–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, W. J., Szerszen, K. A. Sr., Lu, A. S., Schermerhorn, P. W., Scheutz, M., & MacDorman, K. F.
(2011) A mismatch in the human realism of face and voice produces an uncanny valley. i-Perception, 21, 10–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. K.
(2012) A Bayesian explanation of the ‘Uncanny Valley’ effect and related psychological phenomena. Nature Scientific Reports, 21, 864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mori, M.
(1970/2005) The uncanny valley. (K. F. MacDorman, & T. Minato, Trans.). Energy, 71, 33–35.Google Scholar
Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N.
(2012) The uncanny valley [from the field]. Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE, 191, 98–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, C. M., Furqan, A., & Zhu, J.
(2019, May). The impact of user characteristics and preferences on performance with an unfamiliar voice user interface. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–9). Glasgow, Scotland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
NPR & Edison Research
(2018) The smart audio report, winter 2018. Retrieved from [URL]
Pollick, F. E.
(2010) In search of the uncanny valley. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, 401, 69–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
(2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Ramey, C. H.
(2006) An inventory of reported characteristics for home computers, robots, and human beings: Applications for android science and the uncanny valley. In MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci 2006 Long Symposium: ‘Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science’ (pp. 21–25). Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A., & Weiss, A.
(2015) The uncanny valley phenomenon: Does it affect all of us? Interaction Studies, 161, 206–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schein, C., & Gray, K.
(2015) The eyes are the window to the uncanny valley: Mind perception, autism and missing souls. Interaction Studies, 161, 173–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seyama, J. I., & Nagayama, R. S.
(2007) The uncanny valley: Effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 161, 337–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stafford, R. Q., Broadbent, E., Jayawardena, C., Unger, U., Kuo, I. H., Igic, A., Wong, R., Kerse, N., Watson, C., & MacDonald, B. A.
(2010, September). Improved robot attitudes and emotions at a retirement home after meeting a robot. In Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium in Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 82–87). Viareggio, Italy. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stafford, R. Q., MacDonald, B. A., Jayawardena, C., Wegner, D. M., & Broadbent, E.
(2014) Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 61, 17–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stein, J. P., & Ohler, P.
(2017) Venturing into the uncanny valley of mind – The influence of mind attribution on the acceptance of human-like characters in a virtual reality setting. Cognition, 1601, 43–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tharp, M., Holtzman, N. S., & Eadeh, F. R.
(2017) Mind perception and individual differences: A replication and extension. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 391, 68–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waddell, K.
(2017, April 21). Chatbots have entered the uncanny valley. The Atlantic. Retrieved from [URL]
Wang, S., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Rochat, P.
(2015) The uncanny valley: Existence and explanations. Review of General Psychology, 191, 393–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, X., & Krumhuber, E. G.
(2018) Mind perception of robots varies with their economic versus social function. Frontiers in Psychology, 91, 1230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N.
(2010) Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 51, 219–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H.
(2016) ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M.
(2018, March 9). Alexa’s creepy laughter is a bigger problem than amazon admits. Fast Company. Retrieved from [URL]