“Robot Like Me” Revisited - An Alternative Approach of Measuring Human and Agent Personalities and Its Impact on Reported Intention to Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past studies have emphasized the importance of adjusting agent personalities for improving users’ acceptance and engagement. However, it is not yet clear how agent personalities can be decided on, as preferences have highly varied in different studies and are task/context dependent. In this proof of concept study, we use Affect Control Theory (ACT) to evaluate perceived affective dimensions of personality (called identities thereafter) of 11 different social robots, and study how this perception affects participants’ interests in interacting with the robots. We ask whether ACT can be used as a novel approach to identify participants’ preferred identities for robots in health/therapy contexts. An online study with 95 participants (a total of 1045 robot ratings) was conducted. Our study supports the use of ACT for understanding users’ preferences for social robot identities measured through robot images: the closer the participants rated their own identity to a robot’s, the more interested they reported to be in using the robot in a health/well-being context. We also report on different factors that influenced rating of social robots as described by the participants, such as robot’s size, animal/human-likeness, and perceived friendliness and complexity. We finally discuss advantages of using ACT as an alternative method, compared to Big 5 dimensions, to assess user and agent/robot identities and to guide personalization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".