Year 2019, Volume 4 , Issue 2, Pages 149 - 158 2019-10-26

IS THE BELIEF THAT HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD OR EVIL RELATED TO THE STANCE ON THE POSSIBLE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF ROBOTS?
İnsan Doğasının İyi veya Kötü Olduğuna Dair İnanç Robotların Olası Sosyal Etkisine Dair Bakış Açısıyla İlişkili mi?

Serkan EREBAK [1]


One of the topics focused on by robotic technology manufacturers is to integrate robots into many social environments, especially in the workplaces. To achieve this integration, the human side of the human-robot interaction must be understood carefully. Thus, an individual level examination of how people look at the world through a cultural lens may help to understand the interaction with robots that are supposed to become part of society. In the line of this logic, 171 psychology students were reached through an online survey. The results support a positive relationship between respondents' perception that human nature is evil and negative attitude towards robots’ social influence. However, according to the results of the hierarchical regression analysis, the hopelessness of respondents does not affect this relationship. To adapt these technologies to the workplace, and to ensure efficiency, the organization may need to learn about what kind of cultural lens its employees look at the world in general.

Robotik teknoloji üreticilerinin odaklandığı konulardan bir tanesi yakın gelecekte başta işyerleri olmak üzere birçok sosyal çevreye robotları entegre etmektir. Bu entegrasyonun sağlanabilmesi için insan-robot etkileşiminin insan tarafı dikkatle anlaşılmalıdır. İnsanların nasıl bir kültürel lensle dünyaya baktıklarının bireysel seviyede incelenmesi toplumun bir parçası haline geleceği tahmin edilen robotlarla etkileşimin daha yakından anlaşılmasına yardımcı olabilir. Bu mantık ışığında, Türkiye’deki 171 psikoloji öğrencisine çevrimiçi anket yoluyla ulaşılmıştır. Sonuçlar katılımcıların insanın doğasının kötü olduğuna dair algısıyla robotların sosyal etkisine dair negatif tutumu arasında pozitif bir ilişki olduğunu desteklemektedir; ancak hiyerarşik regresyon analizi sonucuna göre katılımcıların umutsuzluğunun bu ilişki üzerinde bir etkisi görülememiştir. Bu teknolojileri işyerine adapte etmek ve verimi sağlayabilmek için örgütün genel olarak çalışanlarının nasıl bir kültürel lensle dünyaya baktıklarını öğrenmesi yardımcı olabilir.

  • Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468-479.
  • Althern, G., & Bennett, J. (2011). American Ways: A Cultural Guide to the United States of America. Hachette UK.
  • Bartneck, C., Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kato, K. (2005). Cultural differences in attitudes towards robots. Paper presented at the Proc. Symposium on robot companions (SSAISB 2005 convention).
  • Bartneck, C., Van Der Hoek, M., Mubin, O., & Al Mahmud, A. (2007). “Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do!” switching off a robot. Paper presented at the Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on.
  • Basım, H. N. (1998). Yönetim ve Örgütlenme Süreçlerinde Ulusal Kültür Etkisi: İşletme Yöneticilerinin Kültürel Görüş Açıları Üzerine Uygulamalı Bir Araştırma. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Gazi University, Ankara.
  • Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 28(1), 1-14.
  • Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, L. (1974). The measurement of pessimism: the hopelessness scale. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 42(6), 861-865.
  • Beilmann, M., & Lilleoja, L. (2015). Social trust and value similarity: The relationship between social trust and human values in Europe. Studies of Transition States and Societies, 7(2), 19-30.
  • Boyer, P. (2003). Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 119-124.
  • Bryson, J. J. (2010). Robots should be slaves. Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological, Ethical Design Issues, 63-74.
  • Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice (Vol. 4): Pearson education Boston, MA.
  • Clark, J., Kim, B., Poulton, R., & Milne, B. J. (2006). The role of low expectations in health and education investment and hazardous consumption. Canadian Journal of Economics, 39(4), 1151-1172.
  • de Graaf, M. M. A. (2016). An Ethical Evaluation of Human–Robot Relationships. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(4), 589-598. doi:10.1007/s12369-016-0368-5
  • Durak, A., & Palabıyıkoğlu, R. (1994). Beck umutsuzluk ölçeği geçerlilik çalışması. Kriz Dergisi, 2, 311-319.
  • Enz, S., Diruf, M., Spielhagen, C., Zoll, C., & Vargas, P. A. (2011). The Social Role of Robots in the Future—Explorative Measurement of Hopes and Fears. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(3), 263-271. doi:10.1007/s12369-011-0094-y
  • Erdem, R. (2003). Toplumsal Kültürün Hastanelerin Kurum Kültürüne Etkisi: Fırat Tıp Merkezi Örneği. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Hacettepe University, Ankara.
  • Erebak, S., & Turgut, T. (2018). Negative Attitudes toward Robots Scale: Validity and Reliability of Turkish Version. Toros Üniversitesi İİSBF Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(9), 407-418.
  • Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi‐level model of culture: from the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 583-598.
  • Feil-Seifer, D., & Matarić, M. J. (2011). Socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 18(1), 24-31.
  • Freud, S. (2012). Totem and Taboo. doi:10.4324/9780203164709
  • Fromm, E. (2011). The heart of man: Its genius for good and evil. Lantern Books.
  • Hegel, F., Muhl, C., Wrede, B., Hielscher-Fastabend, M., & Sagerer, G. (2009). Understanding social robots. In Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, 2009. ACHI'09. Second International Conferences on (pp. 169-174): IEEE.
  • Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243-259.
  • Heinonen, K., Räikkönen, K., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2005). Self-esteem in early and late adolescence predicts dispositional optimism–pessimism in adulthood: A 21-year longitudinal study. Personality & Individual Differences, 39(3), 511-521.
  • Hills, M. D. (2002). Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's Values Orientation Theory. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 4(4). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1040
  • Jipson, J. L., & Gelman, S. A. (2007). Robots and rodents: Children’s inferences about living and nonliving kinds. Child Development, 78(6), 1675-1688.
  • Kahn Jr, P. H., Gary, H. E., & Shen, S. (2013). Children's social relationships with current and near‐future robots. Child Development Perspectives, 7(1), 32-37.
  • Kahn Jr, P. H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Gill, B. T., Ruckert, J. H., Shen, S., . . . Severson, R. L. (2012). Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction.
  • Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL Row, Peterson.
  • Lee, I., Choi, B., Kim, J., & Hong, S.-J. (2014). Culture-technology fit: effects of cultural characteristics on the post-adoption beliefs of mobile internet users. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 11-51. doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415110401
  • Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. (2011). Robot ethics: Mapping the issues for a mechanized world. Artificial Intelligence, 175(5-6), 942-949. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2010.11.026
  • Malle. (2015). Integrating robot ethics and machine morality: the study and design of moral competence in robots. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4), 243-256. doi:10.1007/s10676-015-9367-8
  • Malle, Scheutz, M., Arnold, T., Voiklis, J., & Cusimano, C. (2015). Sacrifice one for the good of many?: People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction.
  • Marino, D., & Tamburrini, G. (2006). Learning robots and human responsibility. International Review of Information Ethics, 6(12), 46-51.
  • Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: D. VanNostrand Company. In: Inc.
  • Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Information Technology, 6(3), 175-183.
  • May, R. (1982). The problem of evil: An open letter to Carl Rogers. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 22(3), 10-21.
  • Maznevski, M., & DiStefano, J. (1995). Measuring culture in international management-the cultural perspectives questionnaire, work in progress paper presented at Academy of International Business Annual meeting.
  • McCoy, S., Galletta, D. F., & King, W. R. (2005). Integrating national culture into IS research: The need for current individual level measures. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15(1), 12.
  • Müller, V. C. (2016). Autonomous Killer Robots Are Probably Good News. In Drones and Responsibility (pp. 77-91): Routledge.
  • Nagenborg, M., Capurro, R., Weber, J., & Pingel, C. (2008). Ethical regulations on robotics in Europe. Ai & Society, 22(3), 349-366.
  • Neller, K. (2008). Explaining social trust: what makes people trust their fellow citizens. Social capital in Europe: similarity of countries diversity of people, 103-133.
  • Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., & Kato, K. (2006). Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 437-454.
  • Perrett, R. W. (2002). Evil and human nature. The Monist, 85(2), 304-319.
  • Powers, T. M. (2011). Incremental machine ethics. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 18(1), 51-58.
  • Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1997). The Media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media: Cambridge University Press.
  • Riether, N., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., & Horstmann, G. (2012). Social facilitation with social robots? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction.
  • Rogers, C. R. (1982). Reply to Rollo May's letter to Carl Rogers. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 22(4), 85-89.
  • Salter, T., Dautenhahn, K., & Te Boekhorst, R. (2004). Robots moving out of the laboratory-detecting interaction levels and human contact in noisy school environments. Paper presented at the Procs 13th IEEE Int Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN.
  • Salvini, P., Laschi, C., & Dario, P. (2010). Design for Acceptability: Improving Robots’ Coexistence in Human Society. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 451-460. doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0079-2
  • Saver, J. L., & Rabin, J. (1997). The neural substrates of religious experience. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 9, 498-510.
  • Scheutz, M., Schermerhorn, P., Kramer, J., & Anderson, D. (2007). First steps toward natural human-like HRI. Autonomous Robots, 22(4), 411-423.
  • Schwitzgebel, E. (2007). Human nature and moral education in Mencius, Xunzi, Hobbes, and Rousseau. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 24(2), 147-168.
  • Seber, G., Dilbaz, N., Kaptanoğlu, C., & Tekin, D. (1993). Umutsuzluk ölçeği: Geçerlilik ve güvenirliği. Kriz Dergisi, 1(3), 139-142.
  • Singer, P. W. (2009). Wired for war: The robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. Penguin.
  • Van Norden, B. W. (1998). Menius. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 6, pp. 302-304). London: Routledge.
  • Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2008). Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press.
  • Yamakage, M. (2006). The essence of Shinto: Japan’s spiritual heart. In P. D. Leeuw & A. Rankin (Eds.). Tokyo: Kodansha International.
  • Yamamoto, S. (1983). Why the Japanese has no allergy to robots. L'esprit d'aujourd'hui (Gendai no Esupuri), 187, 136-143.
  • Yüksel, S. E. (2018). Küreselleşmenin Sinema Endüstrisine Etkileri: Türkiye'de Üretim-Dağıtım-Gösterim İlişkileri Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Selçuk Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Akademik Dergisi, 11(1), 331-348.
  • Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2p2), 1-28.
  • Złotowski, J., Proudfoot, D., Yogeeswaran, K., & Bartneck, C. (2014). Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human–Robot Interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(3), 347-360. doi:10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6
Primary Language en
Subjects Social
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0002-3777-7249
Author: Serkan EREBAK (Primary Author)
Institution: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi
Country: Turkey


Dates

Application Date : August 20, 2019
Publication Date : October 26, 2019

Bibtex @research article { tursbad607369, journal = {Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi}, issn = {2548-009X}, eissn = {2548-0103}, address = {}, publisher = {Hasan Kalyoncu University}, year = {2019}, volume = {4}, pages = {149 - 158}, doi = {}, title = {IS THE BELIEF THAT HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD OR EVIL RELATED TO THE STANCE ON THE POSSIBLE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF ROBOTS?}, key = {cite}, author = {EREBAK, Serkan} }
APA EREBAK, S . (2019). IS THE BELIEF THAT HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD OR EVIL RELATED TO THE STANCE ON THE POSSIBLE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF ROBOTS?. Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi , 4 (2) , 149-158 . Retrieved from http://tursbad.hku.edu.tr/en/issue/49773/607369
MLA EREBAK, S . "IS THE BELIEF THAT HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD OR EVIL RELATED TO THE STANCE ON THE POSSIBLE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF ROBOTS?". Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi 4 (2019 ): 149-158 <http://tursbad.hku.edu.tr/en/issue/49773/607369>
Chicago EREBAK, S . "IS THE BELIEF THAT HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD OR EVIL RELATED TO THE STANCE ON THE POSSIBLE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF ROBOTS?". Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi 4 (2019 ): 149-158
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - IS THE BELIEF THAT HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD OR EVIL RELATED TO THE STANCE ON THE POSSIBLE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF ROBOTS? AU - Serkan EREBAK Y1 - 2019 PY - 2019 N1 - DO - T2 - Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 149 EP - 158 VL - 4 IS - 2 SN - 2548-009X-2548-0103 M3 - UR - Y2 - 2019 ER -
EndNote %0 Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi IS THE BELIEF THAT HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD OR EVIL RELATED TO THE STANCE ON THE POSSIBLE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF ROBOTS? %A Serkan EREBAK %T IS THE BELIEF THAT HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD OR EVIL RELATED TO THE STANCE ON THE POSSIBLE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF ROBOTS? %D 2019 %J Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi %P 2548-009X-2548-0103 %V 4 %N 2 %R %U
ISNAD EREBAK, Serkan . "IS THE BELIEF THAT HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD OR EVIL RELATED TO THE STANCE ON THE POSSIBLE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF ROBOTS?". Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi 4 / 2 (October 2019): 149-158 .
AMA EREBAK S . IS THE BELIEF THAT HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD OR EVIL RELATED TO THE STANCE ON THE POSSIBLE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF ROBOTS?. JOTSSR. 2019; 4(2): 149-158.
Vancouver EREBAK S . IS THE BELIEF THAT HUMAN NATURE IS GOOD OR EVIL RELATED TO THE STANCE ON THE POSSIBLE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF ROBOTS?. Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2019; 4(2): 158-149.