The Psychology of Anthropomorphism

Today's Guest Post is authored by Mowaffak Allaham.  Mowaffak is a graduate student at GMU and a research assistant at the GMU Social Robotics Lab. Follow him on twitter at @mowaffakallaham.

Author: Mowaffak Allaham

Psychologists have identified the ability to perceive the minds of others as necessary for meaningful social interactions. Ongoing research is trying to determine factors that underpin mind perception, as this ability not only allows us to perceive the mind of a fellow human, but also to perceive it in nonhuman objects or agents. This tendency to imbue the real, or imagined, behavior of nonhuman agents with humanlike characteristics, motivations, intentions, or emotions [1] is called anthropomorphism.

A critical prerequisite to understanding the minds of other humans is to attribute the presence of mental states to their minds in the first place – intentions, desires, and beliefs. During the process of anthropomorphism, the attribution of mental states can even be applied to non-human objects or agents (e.g: 3D avatars or robots).  In a classic experiment exploring this phenomenon, Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel [2] presented participants with a video of two animated triangles either chasing or hiding from one another.

This study demonstrated our innate tendency to attribute personality traits, and therefore a mind, even for simple, geometric shapes! Since then, anthropomorphism has intrigued many psychologists, and more recently neuroscientists, as a window into the cognitive mechanisms that drive our perceptions of the mental states in others.

Interestingly, one study found that an absence of social connections increased the tendency to anthropomorphize, presumably to satisfy our motivation for social connection.  In contrast, people with a strong sense of social connection were less likely to anthropomorphize non-human agents.

Research on anthropomorphism has expanded beyond the confines of psychology, reaching newly emerging fields like human-robot interaction. Computer scientists and roboticists are actively exploring the factors that influence our perception of robots.

Along these lines, scientists at the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University have proposed six design suggestions for a humanoid robotic head [1] to support the perception of humanness in robots. Further, these researchers have isolated some facial features in particular, such as eyes, nose, and eyebrows, as major contributors to a robot’s humanness. However, even robots that do not include all of these features, like Kismet at MIT [3], are sufficient for our minds to anthropomorphize and treat them in a very human-like way.

There is no doubt that robots are becoming more present in our lives, but what are the psychological implications of this new technology? Earlier this year Boston Dynamics revealed a video demonstrating their new robot “Spot”. This autonomous robot has four hydraulic legs and a sensor head to help it move across rough terrain. Although Spot’s appearance was quite robotic, many people condemned the act of kicking it during the recorded video demonstration. Some took it further to initiate a campaign to stop robot abuse. Interestingly, such reactions can inform us how people perceived Spot to have a mind similar to that of humans, therefore a feeling of pain, despite its obvious animalistic embodiment.

But what role does one’s belief, or knowledge, of a specific agent play in anthropomorphizing it? Noel Sharkey, a professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield, UK, has told CNN that for him, as a roboticist, kicking Spot was “quite an impressive test” since usually kicking a robot will knock it over. Was his prior knowledge of artificial intelligence sufficient to allow Sharkey to perceive Spot as a mindless agent?  His attitude was in contrast with those who perceived Spot, a robot without a head, as a mindful robot that feels pain despite lacking even the basic characteristics of an animal.  Nuances like these are essential to our understanding of how we anthropomorphize others and require greater understanding if we are to improve human-robot interactions. Knowing more about the cognitive, or neurological, process of anthropomorphism could assist computer scientists and roboticists to reverse engineer and implement the underlying principles in future caregiver robots, for example, improving interactions with patients. In other words, cracking the mechanism that underlies anthropomorphism could bring us closer to having robots that read, and help, the minds of others.

References:

[1] DiSalvo, Carl F., et al. "All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads." Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM, 2002.

[2] Animating Anthropomorphism: Giving Minds To Geometric Shapes Scientific American.

[3] Breazeal, Cynthia. "Toward sociable robots." Robotics and autonomous systems 42.3 (2003): 167-175.

Further Readings:

Epley, Nicholas, et al. "When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism." Social Cognition 26.2 (2008): 143-155.

Epley, Nicholas, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. "On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism." Psychological review 114.4 (2007): 864.

Flexibility of focus: what and how much?

Multitasking?

Attention deficit: another modern malady of excess.  Too much food, and we became larger.  A surfeit of sitting, and we grew softer.  Now, with the information revolution, we wrestle with an excess of ideas, and we grow distracted.

Recently, science has begun to unearth the pitfalls of poor focus.  In one study, researchers at Stanford examined the cognitive consequences of multitasking and found that the chronically distracted lost the ability to control attention.  Cognitive performance suffered as a result.  Gross.

But regulating our attention is more interesting, and complicated, than focusing on one task at a time.  Yes, we must choose where to place our attention. However, we must also decide how much to focus.

A recent article in the Journal of Neuroscience, emphasizes the importance of intensity of attention as it relates to cognitive performance.  In this fascinating study, the authors rely on recordings from a group of neurons in the monkey brain that correlate with attention: the more neurons firing in this brain region, the more focused the monkey.  Intriguingly, the authors found that as the focus of the monkeys increased, so did performance on a visual discrimination task... To a point.  Surprisingly, when the monkeys were most focused, they often performed poorly when the task demanded recognition of large changes.  In these cases, focused monkeys were very good at detecting minute changes, yet large visual changes resulted in more errors for dialed-in monkeys.  Did the monkeys miss the forest for the trees?

Good hands and the Goldilocks zone

Stay focused.

As an amateur molecular biologist, I often wrestle with lapses of concentration.  This can be linked, I speculate, to the simultaneous terror and boredom that molecular work entails.

Picture this: six, clear tubes, labelled in a simple code that belies the complexity of the underlying experiment.  I add liquid, typically clear with no discernible color, hue or other distinguishing features that might signal that this is anything more than water.

I set a timer.  Ten minutes of incubation at room temperature.  I place the tubes in a centrifuge and spin, 15,000 cycles per minute.  I wait fifteen minutes more, remove some clear liquid and add more, but a different kind.  I repeat each step six times, one for each tube.

In between actions, I change the tip of my pipetman - the device that allows microliter control over the liquid added to the evolving biochemical reaction.  Change tip, add liquid, next tube. Repeat.

During these day-long exercises in repetition, I've experienced some failures.  These mistakes fall into one of two broad categories: external or internal.  In the external class, I become distracted by something happening outside my head.  A conversation between colleagues or a conversation I've started.  When these conversations reach some mystical level of distraction, I will realize in a moment of panic that I've skipped a critical step.  Or, I've lost track of the tubes.  Or, I've lost count.  Failure.

Three Principles of Greatness

Three principles, not three monkeys.

Some people are successful and just seem to rise to the top.  Others achieve more modest goals.  Still more live without purpose, or enjoyment, or passion.  Many harm themselves, or others, through ignorance or impulse.  This is the spectrum of human performance, and the age-old questions spring to mind: is it destiny, strength of will, or chance that propels some people to greatness while others remain mediocre, or fail?

A modern take on this issue is the Nature vs. Nurture debate.  Originally, the question was posed as either-or: are we a product of our genes, or a product of our environment?  For things as complex as human biology, health, and performance, either-or just doesn't cut it, so the goalposts moved.  The question became: how much do genes and environment each contribute to who we are?

My response: who cares?  To improve our quality of life, even considering things that are out of our control - our biology, the environment - wastes precious time and energy.  Instead, why not focus on what we can control and work hard to influence those things?  Really, we must focus on the one thing that we can control: ourselves.

At the end of the day, we are defined by what we do - how we behave - and humans are really good at learning tricks from other people about how to do stuff.  This is culture, and we are built to communicate and acquire culture.  Because of this, we can watch and learn from those people who achieve greatness and change ourselves by adopting the behaviors and thinking strategies that foster peak performance.  If we want to achieve greatness, we must think, and behave, like great people.

The science is always evolving, but three thinking approaches are clearly necessary for incredible performance.  Apply these to your own thinking to be your best, and don't let your genes or environment define who you are:

1. Mindfulness - Great performers are focused, completely, on the task at hand.  To be great, we must live in reality, attending to the challenges of the here and now.   Only with our attention focused on the present can we do things well.  If our mind wanders to distraction, or if we fixate on our own worry, anxiety, or frustrations, then we are not thinking about what we should be doing, right now, to achieve our goals.

2. Acceptance - Bad things happen.  That's life.  There is nothing we can do about it, so we should accept it and move on.  Peak performers don't try to avoid bad things, or change the past, they continue to work despite the bad things that happen.  This principle doesn't just apply to external stuff out of our control, it also applies to uncomfortable things we must go through to be great.  Want to get in shape?  You will have to accept some amount of discomfort.  Want to be the best at your job?  You're going to have to push yourself into new intellectual territory.  Being amazing requires a willingness to endure discomfort and frustration.  We must accept the sacrifices needed to achieve our goals.

3. Commitment - The final characteristic of peak performers is commitment.  For people to become great at something, they must commit to that something, and continue to pursue greatness again and again.  By "buying in" to an endeavor - athletic, professional, or personal - the peak performer will keep going, doggedly pursuing greatness no matter what obstacles emerge.  

When most people think about peak performance, they think of athletics, but these three principles are not exclusive to sports.  Whether your goal is to be the best in your career, improve your health, or maintain a strong relationship, these concepts are critical for maximizing your potential.  Of course, actually practicing these thinking strategies isn't always easy.  I know this first-hand.  All of us succumb to periods of self-doubt, low motivation, or frustration,  but these principles can apply to our own failings.  By being mindful of our emotions, accepting negative emotions as a part of life, and maintaining commitment to self-improvement, we will continue to grow stronger.

If you enjoyed this article, please take some time to promote The Happy Homunculus.  Also, you can learn more about the above topics by reading The Psychology of Enhancing Human Performance. Thanks, and Stay happy!

Thinking about thinking about thinking... too much!

"The doer and the thinker, no allowance for the other" - Jethro Tull

Thinking is good.  Sometimes.

Previously, we discussed the concept of metacognition and defined the term as thinking about thinking.  We concluded that this was not some arcane philosophical exercise but, rather, a useful practice that allows us to identify detrimental thinking habits and correct or eliminate them.

Implied in this approach is a critical concept: that we can change the way we think over time.  Why is this notion so far-fetched? If we can improve in all manner of intellectual and physical domains, why couldn't we improve how we think? In fact, this strategy is being studied and applied in a number of contexts including during the treatment of depression and substance abuse (in these cases, cognitive-behavioral therapies often emphasize metacognitive approaches) and practice may also make perfect for positive thinking.

However, thinking too much isn't always a good thing and, eventually, we must convert thoughts into actions if we will ever accomplish anything. Thus, while thinking about thinking has a time and place, the default  metacognitive skill should be the opposite: not thinking. You hear me? Don't spend too much time thinking or you won't get anywhere!  Of course, feel free to think about the details of any project you're tackling, but avoid ruminating on your problems.

When in doubt, don't think. Do.

Practically, what are some strategies we can use to stop thinking? Here are some rough guidelines for emptying your head of all those annoying thoughts:

1. Be gentle with your brain - Inevitably, thoughts will sneak into your mind. Don't get mad! Don't be impatient with your rambunctious inner voice! Just let it happen and gently try to let the thoughts go. All we need is love, and getting angry with ourselves doesn't do any good. Along those lines, don't get angry with yourself if you get angry with yourself... I know that sounds silly, but it will happen! Just laugh at your brain and move on.

2. Focus on something outside your head - This is a strategy used in traditional meditation all the time: focus on something else. You could listen to your breathing, or do the dishes, or go for a walk, or watch a dog. That's right, a dog.  Hello, dog. Distract yourself from your own thoughts. I've found that focusing on a task that helps someone else is the best way to clear your brain: now you're accomplishing something and are helping another person. If any thoughts creep in, they are likely to be about that someone else, not about yourself, and that just feels good.

3. Censor yourself - There is a great discussion in this post about how our brains are structured to initiate actions (and thoughts). A strategy inspired by these concepts is to simply censor thoughts as they creep in. One could playfully quip "VETO!" when some unpleasant, troubling thought pops in. Just repeat "VETO!" every time until that Homunculus starts to learn! Any phrase will do, just remember guideline #1 above: be gentle (and have fun).

Finally, a little mental training challenge. Tomorrow, for the entire day, play around with not thinking. Use the guidelines above, or invent your own strategies. Just try not to think (warning: it's really hard!).  Instead, do a whole bunch of stuff.  You'll feel good and get a ton done during a day without a ton of useless, distracting thoughts.

Stay Happy!

Thinking about thinking about thinking...

What you thinkin' about?

Take a moment and pause. Chill out. Reflect on yourself.

Think about your thinking. Don't balk - this isn't some new age non-sense. You will not be exposed to Tarot cards. This is really important: how you think defines who you are and what you do.

Pop-quiz! Is your thinking effective? Does the way you think promote progress toward your goals? Does your thinking improve your mood or make you feel anxious or depressed? How often do you think about the feelings of others, walk around in their shoes, empathize? Are you open-minded? Could you be more open-minded? Be honest... (the answer is "yes", by the way. No, I know and I don't care. The answer is "yes".) Finally, and most importantly: do you think you can change the way you think?

Here at The Happy Homunculus, we will be tackling these questions, and many more, with the ultimate goal of improving the way we think. Of course, this goal is built on the presumption that we can change the way we think and, thankfully, evidence is piling up that this is possible. And changing the way we think is simple (but maybe not easy). We can get better at thinking the same way we get better at anything else: through practice!

These concepts are the domain of a scientific and philosophical discipline referred to as metacognition: psycho-jargon for thinking about thinking. The prefix meta is used in this context to mean "about itself" and cognition is, simply, thinking. Thus, metacognition translates to thinking about itself (meaning thinking), or thinking about thinking. Whew!

Metacognition is an umbrella term that can apply to a bevy of topics that include learning, memory, emotions, social interactions, self-control, anxiety, etc. Essentially, anything that is essential to being a functioning, happy, calm, fun, caring and smart person. Metacognition as a science or discipline hopes to study how we think in order to find and apply the thinking strategies that are the "best" and cut out those that run counter to our hopes, dreams, and ambitions.

A tenet of The Happy Homunculus is that bad thinking - poor cognition - is a major, and often under-appreciated, contributor to most of our individual problems (at least in the industrialized world). Modern life challenges us with incredible complexities in terms of learning, planning, working with diverse people, managing stress, and resisting temptations. Our attitudes and assumptions about each of these aspects of our lives will profoundly affect how we behave in the heat of the moment. How you behave in the heat of the moment defines how you perform. Add up all your hot moments, you get your life.

A very recent study examined the relationship between self-control (which is a hallmark of meta-cognitive-ninja skillz) and a number of life outcomes including health and wealth. In this case, 1000 individuals were measured for self-control as children and were tracked through the age of 32:

"[W]e show that childhood self-control predicts physical health, substance dependence, personal finances, and criminal offending outcomes, following a gradient of self-control [...] In another cohort of 500 sibling-pairs, the sibling with lower self-control had poorer outcomes, despite shared family background."

Cool! And, there are lot's of other studies that observe similar relationships. However, these findings shouldn't be that surprising. It seems intuitive that if we have better self-control, we can do more things that we couldn't otherwise do: exercise, save money, eat right, etc. So, in order to do all these hard things that are "good for us", we must develop strategies for regulating our thinking to promote self-control. Figuring out how to do that is what The Happy Homunculus lives for! Hopefully, these discussions will be valuable to you as well, dear reader.

Finally, you may be wondering: what the hell is a "homunculus"? You can learn more here, but for now, just think of it as that little voice inside your head...

Until next time, keep thinkin'!

The Homunculus