The Future of Robotic Design: Trends From the ...

feature

The Future of Robotic Design: Trends From the History of Media Representations

Robot forms and functions depicted in science fiction find their way into real-world robotic systems and interaction with people.

By Kristin E. Schaefer, Jeffrey K. Adams, Jacquelyn G. Cook, Angela Bardwell-Owens, & Peter A. Hancock FEATURE AT A GLANCE: The perception of what constitutes a robot depends on both technological advances and evolving social perceptions. Here, we explore how the fictional media affect those societal perceptions and the subsequent influence on robot design to date. We then examine how these design trends can be applied to present circumstances to suggest future design directions. KEYWORDS: design, human–robot interaction, fictional media, mental models, perception, robot

I

n the past decade, we have seen an

influx of robots into many everyday social environments. These include examples in the home, the workplace, health-care facilities, and the battlefield. Although robots have a number of task-dependent design features and functional characteristics, the majority are being developed to extend human capabilities and compensate for physical and cognitive limitations. But where does the innovation for today’s robots originate? In this article, we suggest that current robotic developments are contingent on both technical advancement and social influence through fictional media (e.g., in film, books, and TV). As discussed in this article, fictional media can be used to create future robot design guidelines related to the importance of anthropomorphism, matching form and function, and human-robot integration. A Brief History of Robot Design A number of important design elements for successful robot integration into human society have already been identified. History has shown that a merging of the natural and the mechanical dictate the importance of both form and function in the development of current robotics. For example, the artificial replication of physical and functional characteristics of animals and people (biomimetic principles) stems from the earliest instantiations of robots (e.g., the Pigeon, a mechanical bird developed by Archytas of Tarentum in the third century BCE). In addition, the importance of motion also has a long-standing design history. Whether it was by Archytas of Tarentum’s use of steam, da Vinci’s use of pulleys and cables, or the use of battery power

today, movement is an essential element of robots. Without integration of their own intrinsic power source, robots never would have reached the prevalence they have today. However, the balance between human involvement and level of automation (see Parasuraman, Sheridan, & Wickens, 2000) is still a common discussion, especially as robots continue to penetrate further into the social environment. Figure 1 depicts a nonexhaustive timeline of key technological achievements that we believe have affected current robotic design. These advances in technological capabilities have led to a demonstrated usefulness in decision making, communication, situation awareness, combat efficiency, and reduction of uncertainty in volatile situations (Adams, Bruyn, Houde, & Angelopoulous, 2003; Hinds, Roberts, & Jones, 2004; Parasuraman, Cosenzo, & de Visser, 2009). For example, one may argue that Tesla’s remotecontrolled boat in 1898 set the precedent for today’s teleoperated military robots, and the Stanford Cart of the 1970s pioneered the way for autonomous navigation. Robotics is now taking yet another step, specifically toward the human social domain. The current focus of robotic development is transitioning from a primarily tool-based design (as often seen in manufacturing or industrial robotics) toward the status of an integrated team member (see Chen & Terrence, 2009). As such, it is necessary to understand how the form and function of the robot facilitate appropriate social interaction with people (Duffy, 2003). Therefore, our work here illustrates the impact of fictional media on both technological robotic design and the societal perceptions of robots.

Downloaded from erg.sagepub.com at University of Central Florida Libraries on November 2, 2015

January 2015 | ergonomics in design 13

f e a t u r e | The Future of Robotic Design: Trends From the History of Media Representations

understanding of robotics as well as on design. We examine the major themes and lessons derived from an overview of this fiction, including (a) the importance of anthropomorphism in design, (b) the match between form and function, and (c) integration of the human and the robot. We then examine how these design trends can be applied to the next instantiation of real-world robotics.

3rd Century, B.C.E. Greek mathematician Archytas of Tarentum used steam power to build a mechanical bird called “the Pigeon” 1495 Leonardo da Vinci used mechanisms inside armor to build a knight that could move 1738 Jacques de Vaucanson modeled animal autonomy to build “the duck” that could flap its wings, move, and eat eat and

1770 Swiss clock makers Pierre and Henri-Louis Jaquet-Droz built three dolls that could write, play music, and draw, respectively

1898 Nikola Tesla built the first remote-controlled boat

1961 George Devol built the first industrial robotic arm for the General Motors assembly line assembly line

1970/1979 Stanford University developed the “Stanford Cart” that could follow a line or be controlled from a computer. Rebuilt by Hans vision asystem Moravec to include robust vision system

1959 John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky founded the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1966 Stanford Research Institute built Shakey, the first mobile robot to know and react to its own actions

1986 Honda begins robotics research that focuses on robots that coexist and cooperate with humans

Figure 1. Key historical achievements in the evolution of robot design.

Fictional media have had a long-standing role in the field of robotics. Most predominantly, the term robot itself, in its popular modern-day use, stems from Capek’s 1921 play Rossum’s Universal Robots, or R.U.R. (although the term actually derived from robota, a word employed in the Austro-Hungarian empire for “vassal” or “worker”). Fictional media have had a major impact on human perception and 14 ergonomics in design | January 2015

Robot Intention: The Importance of Anthropomorphism DiSalvo and Gemperle (2003) suggested that the level of robotic anthropomorphism alters how individuals interact with robots. These influences include component elements, such as surface features (e.g., beveled edges, number of appendages; Sims, Chin, Yordon, et al., 2005), and facial features and expressions (Lum et al., 2007; Mohan, Calderon, Zhou, & Yue, 2008; Sims, Chin, Sushil, et al., 2005). Goetz, Kiesler, and Powers (2003) demonstrated that social cues are embodied in appearance and therefore influence how individuals perceive a robot (positively or negatively) as well as their willingness to comply with any instructions issued therefrom. In this article, we examine anthropomorphism largely in terms of human-like appearance, behavior, and cognitive capability, as opposed to similarity to other animals or living systems. Physical appearance. Most often, anthropomorphism in fictional media is depicted through the adaptation of humanlike appearance factors. The majority of fictional robots are portrayed as metallic versions of humans, with two arms, two legs, a torso, and a complete face. As technology advanced, especially in visual media, deviations in physical structure began to emerge. The evolution of the fictional robot in visual media has transitioned from the initial depiction of a robot as a metallic human replacement to that of a boxlike “man,” followed by a mobile machine. Most recently, it has returned, in contemporary times, to a surrogate human form (see Figure 2). As physical appearance transitioned from a humanoid to a mobile machine, two trends became evident: Some specific features were removed, whereas others were emphasized. The process of deanthropomorphizing the physical appearance, or removal of specific features, was most obvious from the mid1930s through the early 1950s. Robots maintained a body type that could be termed human-like, including legs, arms, torso, and head. However, their facial features, such as eyes, nose, and mouth, were often omitted. The robot Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still (Blaustein & Wise, 1951) is perhaps the classic representation of this form. The missing features disabled any ability to express emotions or to display intent. This ominous appearance elicited a fearful response from viewers. As such, the subsequent focus on specific facial features became an essential element of advanced social interaction. Eyes and eyebrows are used to portray human-like emotions or purpose. The linked emotional state to eye color



Maria Metropolis (Pommer & Lang, 1927) Robby the Robot Forbidden Planet (Nayfack & Wilcox, 1956)

Mechanical shape that displays human features but does not exhibit human emotion

Mechagodzilla Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (Tanaka & Fukuda, 1974) Japanese influence creates genre of animalistic robot characters

Human shape with mechanical detail that mimics human features. Displays above average intelligence

1927

1974

1956

1951

1964

Humanoid shape but lacks distinct human features and is subservient in nature

Budget restrictions and lack of creativity produce boxy shaped robots with villainous motives Gort The Day the Earth Stood Still (Blaustein & Wise, 1951)

RoboCop RoboCop (Verhoeven, 1987)

Integration of mechanical robotics and human biological material

1987

2004

1977 CGI technology allows for a mechanical humanoid form while increasing emotional expression

Realistic and mechanical in design with high level of intelligence and problem solving features

Torg Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (Webster, 1964)

R2-D2 Star Wars (Kurtz & Lucas, 1977)

Sonny I, Robot (Mark & Proyas, 2004)

Figure 2. Timeline of alterations in design characteristics for robotic characters in film.

has remained constant when designing robots for fictional media (see Johnny Five in Short Circuit, Badham, 1986). Humans in general connect specific colors to emotions (e.g., sadness is associated with “feeling blue,” and anger is associated with “seeing red”). For example, in the Japanese television program Robot Detective (Ishinomori, 1973), the robotic character’s eyes are yellow when in a calm emotional state, red when displaying anger, and blue when expressing sadness. A more in-depth examination of emotive design features (Schaefer et al., 2012) has generated a best-practices approach for integrating emotional dynamics into robot design.

Behavioral indictors. Human-like behaviors have also been shown to be essential in determining purpose and intention during the integration of robots into society. A key example of integrating human behavior and morals into robotics comes from Isaac Asimov’s original Three Laws of Robotics (Asimov, 1950; Hamilton & Hancock, 1986). These laws focus on, first, minimizing harm to humans, then self-preservation, followed by obeying orders. For example, Robby the Robot (from both Forbidden Planet, Nayfack & Wilcox, 1956; and the TV series and subsequent movie Lost in Space, Allen, 1965; Koch & Hopkins, 1998) was designed to abide by these specific laws and is known as a protector and an arbiter of fairness. Two prime examples of human-like behavior are represented in the automated vehicles K.I.T.T. and K.A.R.R. from the TV series

Knight Rider (see Figure 3) as well as Commander Data and his twin brother, Lor, from Star Trek: The Next Generation. In both cases, the physical appearance was similar, if not identical. Thus, K.I.T.T. (Knight Industries Two Thousand, or more recently named Knight Industries Three Thousand) and Commander Data were designed to assist and protect human life, whereas K.A.R.R. (Knight Automated Roving Robot, or the more recently named Knight Auto-Cybernetic Roving Robot Exoskeleton) and Lor were designed to prioritize selfpreservation. Thus, Commander Data and K.I.T.T. emphasize the first law over the second (as Asimov directed), whereas Lor and K.A.R.R. reverse this priority and are often characterized as the “evil” twin. Additional explanations about these characters and their relationship to human–robot trust have been given by Hancock, Billings, and Schaefer (2011). Perhaps the first instantiation of a robot in fictional media stems from Greek mythology in the third century BCE; that is, Talos, a bronze man who protected Crete from pirates. Talos has a human-like appearance and protective behaviors. A number of these robot-like protectors are described in literature and have found their way into visual media (see Jason and the Argonauts; Schneer & Chaffey, 1963). For example, many children’s movies and television shows (e.g., The Iron Giant; Townshend & Bird, 1999) illustrate robots as protectors that frequently take the role of defender from “evil” and often eventually sacrifice themselves for the good of humankind.




Figure 3. A visual comparison of K.I.T.T. and K.A.R.R. from Knight Rider.

Cognitive capabilities. Human-like language and cognitive capabilities also have been featured in fictional media as a means of integrating robots into human society. Similarly, robotics research (e.g., machine learning, communication, and perceptual interpretation) has more recently transitioned to include a stronger focus on the importance of these cognitive capabilities in design. The transition from purely navigation-based functionality to the integration of cognitive functioning was seen in fictional media in the 1940s and 1950s. Prior to this time, authors favored robots that functioned as companions or tools that had either limited or no cognitive abilities (e.g., the Prague myth of the Golem from the mid-1840s; Dekel & Gurley, 2013). As a result, very little emphasis was placed on the concept of robots that were able to function autonomously. Phillip K. Dick was one of the primary authors who helped transition the emphasis to a cognitively aware robot through his novella The Last of the Masters (Dick, 1954). In that work, the robot, Bors, exhibited psychological complexity and cognitive capabilities through its knowledge and capability to rule society in a utilitarian way. Bors also exhibited multiple human-like personality traits, including fear, neuroticism, and paranoia. Cognitive functionality provides the ability to process information in a way that enables the robot to make decisions and solve problems. Subsequently, the ability of machines to learn from their mistakes, the environment, and humans became a common theme in fictional media. To accomplish these cognitive-based functions, robots have to be able to understand humans and communicate ideas using their language, imagery, and other modes of communication. Although the primary mode of fictional communication is usually speech, the process of communication can be generalized in real-world robotics across numerous modalities. For example, Marvin from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Adams, 1979) depicts emotions – typically, depression – through vocal patterns and prose. In addition, whereas certain areas of knowledge can be programmed, a vast number of social and cultural cues are developed through interaction with humans. For example, the robotic character Andrew Martin, from the novella The Bicentennial Man (Asimov, 1976), displays advanced cognitive abilities through the identification of human social cues. This ability allows it to become progressively more acceptable 16 ergonomics in design | January 2015

Figure 4. A visual depiction of matching form and function represented by R2-D2, C-3PO, and General Grievous from Star Wars.

to humans because it can mirror full human appearance (e.g., wearing clothes and replacing his original form). The end result is a robot that becomes vastly more human, largely through its increased ability to communicate and integrate with society. Matching Form and Function Starting in the late 1970s, improvements in cinematic special effects ushered in a new species of robots, which brought the integration of form and function to the forefront of science fiction. Led by Star Wars (Kurtz & Lucas, 1977), robot cast members were now introduced, designed, and animated without the need for a costumed human to portray them. No longer did filmmakers have to rely on human form and features when designing robotic portrayals; more attention was spent on creating robots that could realistically carry out the functions for which they were nominally designed (see Figure 4). Perhaps the most famous robot character of this time was the service droid R2-D2. At first glance, R2-D2 appeared to be merely some form of trash can on wheels. However, it quickly became apparent that its design enabled complex interaction with starship computers as well as physical integration with combat star fighters. R2-D2’s physical design and technological capabilities differed from its mechanical companion, the protocol droid C-3PO. Following the paradigm that a robot’s appearance should match its function, C-3PO strongly resembled a human in both physical design and emotional output. This resemblance enabled it to assist with matters of etiquette, customs, and translation in order to facilitate meetings of different cultures (see Hancock, 2010). As cinematic technology has advanced, so has the idea that robots should be designed with physical features that match their intended function. One of the newer characters in the Star Wars lexicon is General Grievous, a villainous battle droid with multiple arms, each able to brandish a deadly lightsaber during combat. Such improvements brought about by integrating advanced form into innovative functions in science fiction have pointed the way for the development of future designs.



Human–Robot Integration Beginning in the 1980s, fictional media began to demonstrate a much greater degree of intimate integration of robots into the human social setting, both physically and metaphorically (see Boyce & Hancock, 2012). Human-like appearance once again became the standard for primary robot form. However, a unique addition was the integration of humans with robotic components (i.e., cyborgs). In a number of examples, robotics are added to humans for medical necessities (e.g., RoboCop; Verhoeven, 1987; Inspector Gadget; Chalopin, Heyward, Katayama, & Loubert, 1983), the optimization of human abilities (e.g., The Six Million Dollar Man; Bennett et al., 1974), and the replacement of missing limbs (e.g., Anakin Skywalker from Star Wars). As we have noted, in The Bicentennial Man (Asimov, 1976), the robot Andrew Martin becomes progressively more human over the course of two centuries by alterations to both its robot body and brain. The lengthy transformation is depicted as one of the most extreme and ambitious integrations of humans and robots. Whereas certain visual media, such as The Six Million Dollar Man (television series), RoboCop (film), and Bicentennial Man (film) use a piecemeal approach to human–robot body integration, other forms of media posit that the entire world can be fully robotic. For example, in the poem “Organ otropy,” Jason Christie (2006) emphasized robot features in a way that implies humans have the propensity to evolve simultaneously with robots in a symbiotic way. In this work, a human couple has robotic eyes and refers to nearly every item they come into contact with (mail delivery services, cameras, etc.) as robotic. The poem even goes so far as to imply that politicians running for office are trying to exterminate the human race. Design Lessons From Media Fictional media continue to influence real-world robotics design, not only in translating features into current developments but also in how individuals perceive such designs. Fictional media provide the greater society with the capability to form and update its mental models of robots. Yet, although fictional robots often represent extreme or exaggerated formbased or functional capabilities, these perceptions do not necessarily match current robotic design. Practical real-world designers need only to build robots that efficiently accomplish a limited range of assigned tasks. However, in future evolutions, designers also need to be cognizant of robotics in fictional media because of the widespread influence these mechanical characters have on public expectations. The way in which people perceive machines as robots influences their subsequent behavior and quality of interaction with these systems. Thus, we present a set of guidelines established through reference to previous fictional representations in order to foster acceptance, satisfaction, and performance between coming human–robot teams in the immediate future.

1. Societal perception and mental models. Fictional media provide a main avenue for the general society to build perceptions about robot appearance, behavior, and cognitive capabilities. This representation may well lead to dissonance during interaction with real-world robotics. Primarily, this issue revolves around trust and the fracturing of expectations (Hancock, Billings, & Schaefer, 2011; Hancock, Billings, Schaefer, et al., 2011). 2. Importance of anthropomorphism. Fictional representations reinforce the importance of physical, behavioral, and cognitive anthropomorphism in robotic design, especially when robots enter the human social domain. Although it may not be essential that real-world robots have humanlike form (and the majority of current designs do not), other human-like features or capabilities in terms of behavior or cognitive functioning may be essential. 3. Matching form and function. The majority of current robot designs focus primarily on functional capability in relation to a specific task. However, a common theme has shown that physical form should match functional design. For example, it is recommended that companion robots take on a more human-like or animal-like form (e.g., Furby), whereas tool-like service robots can have a less anthropomorphic appearance. 4. Advancement of technology. The advancement in reliability and predictability has been shown to be essential for the development of real-world robotics as well as the advancement of fictional media design. Robots are multidimensional, ever-changing technological systems based on iterations that emanate from the media and then partly percolate into real-world systems. The ways in which people perceive machines are influenced by their access to both fictional and real-world technology. As such, robots can influence individuals’ subsequent behavior and quality of interaction with these systems. What was once only science fiction finds its place in reality, and that reality then founds future imaginings. References

Adams, D. (1979). The hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy. London, UK: Pan Books. Adams, B. D., Bruyn, L. E., Houde, S., & Angelopoulos, P. (2003). Trust in automated systems literature review (Report No. DRDC Toronto No. CR-2003-096). Toronto, Canada: Department of National Defense. Allen, I. (Producer). (1965). Lost in space [Television series]. New York, NY: CBS. Asimov, I. (1950). I, robot. New York, NY: Gnome Press. Asimov, I. (1976). The bicentennial man. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Badham, J. (Director). (1986). Short circuit [Motion picture]. Culver City, CA: TriStar Pictures. Bennett, H., Siegel, L. E., Cramer, J. L., Boyle, D. R., McLaird, A. E., & Strangis, S. (Producers). (1974). The six million dollar man [Television series]. Los Angeles, CA: Harve Bennett Productions. Blaustein, J. (Producer), & Wise, R. (Director). (1951). The day the earth stood still [Motion picture]. Los Angeles, CA: 20th Century Fox. Boyce, M. W., & Hancock, P. A. (2012). The interpenetration of mind and machine. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society




56th Annual Meeting (pp. 178–182). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Capek, K. (1921). R. U. R. (Rossum’s universal robots). London, UK: Penguin. Chalopin, J., Heyward, A., Katayama, T. & Loubert, P. (Producers). (1983). Inspector Gadget [Television series]. Burbank, CA: DiC Enterprises. Chen, J. Y. C., & Terrence, P. I. (2009). Effects of imperfect automation and individual differences on concurrent performance of military and robotics tasks in a simulated multitasking environment. Ergonomics, 52, 907–920. Christie, J. (2006). Organotropy. Calgary, Canada: EDGE Science Fiction and Fantasy Publishing. Dekel, E., & Gurley, D. G. (2013). How the Golem came to Prague. Jewish Quarterly Review, 103, 241−258. Dick, P. K. (1954). The last of the masters. New York, NY: Hanro Corporation. DiSalvo, C., & Gemperle, F. (2003). From seduction to fulfillment: The use of anthropomorphic form in design. In Proceedings from the International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (pp. 67–72). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 177–190. Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., & Powers, A. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In Proceedings from the 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communications (pp. 55–60). Milbrae, CA: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ ROMAN.2003.1251796 Hamilton, J. E., & Hancock, P. A. (1986). Robotics safety: Exclusion guarding for industrial operations. Journal of Occupational Accidents, 8, 69–78. Hancock, P. A. (2010). Politechnology: Manners maketh machine. In C. Hayes & C. Miller (Eds.), Human–computer etiquette (pp. 351–362). Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach. Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., & Schaefer, K. E. (2011). Can you trust your robot? Ergonomics in Design, 19(3), 24–29. Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., Parasuraman, R., & de Visser, E. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53, 517–527. Hinds, P., Roberts, T., & Jones, H. (2004). Whose job is it anyway? A study of human–robot interaction on a collaborative task. Human–Computer Interaction, 19, 151–181. Ishinomori, S. (Producer). (1973). Robot detective [Television series]. Tokyo, Japan: Toei Company Ltd. Koch, M. W. (Producer), & Hopkins, S. (Director). (1998). Lost in space [Motion picture]. Los Angeles, CA: Jim Henson’s Creature Shop. Kurtz, G. (Producer), & Lucas, G. (Director). (1977). Star wars [Motion picture]. Los Angeles, CA: 20th Century Fox. Lum, H., Sinatra, A., Sims, V. K., Chin, M. G., Smith, H. S., Shumaker, R., & Finkelstein, N. (2007). Size does matter: Automobile “facial” features predict consumer attitudes. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting (pp. 1105–1108). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Mark, I. (Producer), & Proyas, A. (Director). (2004). I, robot [Motion picture]. Los Angeles, CA: 20th Century Fox. Mohan, R. E., Calderon, C. A., Zhou, C., & Yue, P. K. (2008). Evaluating virtual emotional expression systems for human-robot interaction in rehabilitation domain. In Proceedings from the International Conference on Cyberworlds (pp. 554−560). Hangzhou, China: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ CW.2008.124 Nayfack, N. (Producer), & Wilcox, F. M. (Director). (1956). Forbidden planet [Motion picture]. Beverly Hills, CA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Parasuraman, R., Cosenzo, K. A., & de Visser, E. (2009). Adaptive automation for human supervision of multiple uninhabited vehicles: Effects on change detection, situation awareness, and mental workload. Military Psychology, 21, 270–297. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286–297. doi:10.1109/3468.844354 Pommer, E. (Producer), & Lang, F. (Director). (1927). Metropolis [Motion picture]. Berlin, Germany: UFA. Schaefer, K. E., Cook, J. G., Adams, J. K., Bell, J., Sanders, T. L., & Hancock, P. A. (2012). Augmented emotion and its remote embodiment: The importance of design from fiction to reality. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting (pp. 1817–1821). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 18 ergonomics in design | January 2015

Schneer, C. H. (Producer), & Chaffey, D. (Director). (1963). Jason and the argonauts [Motion picture]. Los Angeles, CA: Columbia Pictures. Sims, V. K., Chin, M. G., Sushil, D. J., Barber, D. J., Ballion, T., Clark, B. R., Dolezal, M. J., Shumaker, R., & Finkelstein, N. (2005). Anthropomorphism of robotic forms: A response to affordances? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 602–605). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Sims, V. K, Chin, M. G., Yordon, R. E., Sushil, D. J., Barber, D. J., Owens, C. W., Smith, H. S., Dolezal, M. J., Shumaker, R., & Finkelstein, N. (2005). When function follows form: Anthropomorphism of artifact “faces.” In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 595–597). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Tanaka, T. (Producer), & Fukuda, J. (Director). (1974). Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla [Motion picture]. Tokyo, Japan: Toho Cinema Shares International/Downtown Distribution. Townshend, P. (Producer), & Bird, B. (Director). (1999). The iron giant [Motion picture]. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros. Verhoeven, P. (Director). (1987). RoboCop [Motion picture]. Los Angeles, CA: Orion Pictures. Webster, N. (Director). (1964). Santa Claus conquers the Martians [Motion picture]. New York, NY: Jalor Productions.

Kristin E. Schaefer is an ORAU Postdoctoral Fellow with the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate, at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. She received her MS and PhD in modeling and simulation from the University of Central Florida and a BA in psychology from Susquehanna University. Her research interests include human–robot interaction, simulation systems, situation awareness, and trust. Jeffrey K. Adams obtained his BS in psychology from the University of Central Florida. His research interests include human factors and industrial/organizational psychology.

Jacquelyn G. Cook is a master’s student in industrial/organizational psychology at San Jose State University. She obtained her BS in psychology from the University of Central Florida. Her research interests include destructive leadership, team dynamics, and instructional design. Angela Bardwell-Owens is a psychology student at the University of Central Florida. She obtained her associate’s degree in psychology studies from the Seneff Honors College at Valencia College. Her research interests include team dynamics and performance, cognition, and m otivation. Peter A. Hancock is Provost Distinguished Research Professor, Pegasus Professor, and University Trustee Chair in the Department of Psychology and the Institute for Simulation and Training at the University of Central Florida. He is a Fellow and a past president of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.



The research reported in this document was performed in connection with Contract No. W911NF-10-2-0016 with the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, P. A. Hancock, Principal Investigator. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as presenting the official policies or position, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory or the U.S. government unless so designated by other authorized documents. Citation

of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use thereof. The U.S. government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein.

Copyright 2015 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1177/1064804614562214

