MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392633844 · doi:10.1145/3610977.3634985

Investigating the Impact of Gender Stereotypes in Authority on Avatar Robots

2024· article· en· W4392633844 on OpenAlexaff
Yuan-Chia Chang, Daniel J. Rea, Takayuki Kanda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAvatarPerceptionRobotAffect (linguistics)PsychologySocial psychologyService (business)Human–robot interactionComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceCommunicationBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate how gender stereotypes in authority influence the perceptions and behavior of avatar robots operators and their interlocutors. Gender stereotypes, which typically place men in more authoritative positions than women, are present in not only inter-human but also human-robot interaction. As avatar robots become more integrated into our lives and serve for diverse usages, they may be utilized in positions where they require authority. We study how avatar robot gender and operator gender affect expressions and perception of gender stereotypes in a customer service scenario with 41 pairs of participants. Operators controlled binary gendered avatar robots one at a time, acting as shopkeepers that had to assert authority over customers behaving improperly. The operators perceived their authority to be higher with male avatar robots compared to female ones, regardless of operator gender. We did not detect an effect on customer's perception of the shopkeeper's authority. While less than half of operators and customers perceived authority for reasons related to traditional gender stereotypes, others observed behaviors that did not align with stereotypes. Avatar embodiment may also help operators assert authority safely due to being physically hidden from the customers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207