Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-20T17:59:49.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fictional emotions and emotional reactions to social robots as depictions of social agents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2023

Jonas Blatter Open the ORCID record for Jonas Blatter [Opens in a new window]  and
Eva Weber-Guskar Open the ORCID record for Eva Weber-Guskar [Opens in a new window]
Jonas Blatter
Affiliation:
Institute for Philosophy I, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum 44801, Germany [email protected] [email protected] https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/philosophy/weber_guskar
Eva Weber-Guskar
Affiliation:
Institute for Philosophy I, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum 44801, Germany [email protected] [email protected] https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/philosophy/weber_guskar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following the depiction theory by Clark and Fischer we would expect people interacting with robots to experience fictional emotions akin to those toward films or novels. However, some people's emotional reactions toward robots display the motivational force typical to non-fictional emotions. We discuss this incongruity and offer two suggestions on how to explain it while maintaining the depiction theory.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e24
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bainbridge, W. A., Hart, J. W., Kim, E. S., & Scassellati, B. (2011). The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0082-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartneck, C., Van Der Hoek, M., Mubin, O., & Al Mahmud, A. (2007). “Daisy, Daisy, Give Me Your Answer Do!” Switching off a Robot. 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, Washington, DC, pp. 217–222.Google Scholar
Darling, K. (2017). Who's Johnny? Anthropomorphic framing in human–robot-interaction, integration, and policy. In Lin, P., Bekey, G., Abney, K. & Jenkins, R. (Eds.), Robot ethics 2.0 (pp. 173–188). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darling, K. (2021). The new breed: What our history with animals reveals about our future with robots. Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Döring, S. A. (2007). Seeing what to do: Affective perception and rational motivation. Dialectica, 61(3), 363–394. https://doi.org/10/ff8c8pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, S. A. (2008). Conflict without contradiction. In Brun, G., Dogluoglu, U. & Kuenzle, D. (Eds.), Epistemology and emotions (pp. 83–103). Ashgate.Google Scholar
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43(5), 349–358. https://doi.org/ckqCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garber, M. (2013). Funerals for fallen robots: New research explores the deep bonds that can develop between soldiers and the machines that help keep them alive. The Atlantic, September 20.Google Scholar
Garreau, J. (2007). Bots on the ground in the field of battle (or even above it), robots are a soldier's best friend. Washington Post, May 6.Google Scholar
Gendler, T. S. (2010). Genuine rational fictional emotions. In Gendler, T. S. (Ed.) Intuition, imagination, and philosophical methodology (pp. 227–237). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/fn7mcdCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldie, P. (2000). The emotions: A philosophical exploration. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46(4), 352–367. https://doi.org/czd6kpCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, K. M., Jung, Y., Kim, J., & Kim, S. R. (2006). Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people's loneliness in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 64(10), 962–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, J. (2013). An enactivist approach to the imagination: Embodied enactments and “fictional emotions”. American Philosophical Quarterly, 50(3), 317.Google Scholar
Seo, S. H., Geiskkovitch, D., Nakane, M., King, C., & Young, J. E. (2015). Poor Thing! Would You Feel Sorry for a Simulated Robot? A Comparison of Empathy toward a Physical and a Simulated Robot. 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), Portland, OR, pp. 125–132.Google Scholar
Singer, P. W. (2009). Wired for war: The robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. Penguin.Google Scholar
Sung, J., Guo, L., Grinter, R. E., & Christensen, H. I. (2007). “My Roomba is Rambo”: Intimate Home Appliances. Ubicomp, pp. 145–162.10.1007/978-3-540-74853-3_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tappolet, C. (2016). Emotions, values, and agency. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696512.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teroni, F. (2019). Emotion, fiction and rationality. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 59(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayz015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendrell Ferran, I. (2022). Sham emotions, quasi-emotions or non-genuine emotions? Fictional emotions and their qualitative feel. In Breyer, T., Cavallaro, M. & Sandoval, R. (Eds.), Phenomenology of phantasy and emotion (pp. 231–259). WBG Academic.Google Scholar
Walton, K. L. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar