Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Incremental advancements in technology present researchers with opportunities to examine and predict human behavior before the integration of technology into daily life. Previous studies have identified trends in both the design and reception of current social robotic technologies, including gender biases and social “othering”, which may affect how humans interact with more advanced robotic technologies in the future. The aim of the current study was to explore whether preconceived beliefs about gender inequality, interest in casual sex, and social hierarchies would relate individuals’ interest in engaging in platonic friendships (“robofriendship”) or sexual relationships (“robosexuality”) with hypothetical human-like robots. Two-hundred and twelve participants completed an online survey measuring gender, ambivalent sexism, social dominance orientation, and sociosexual orientation in relation to individuals’ interest in both robofriendship and robosexuality. It was found that hostile sexism positively predicted interest in robosexuality, particularly for men (β = .16, b = .27, 95% CI [.03, .30], t(209) = 2.364, p = .019). Conversely, hostile sexism negatively predicted robofriendship, and significant interactions effects were found in that at lower levels of SDO, women maintained greater interest in robofriendship than men (β = .26, b = .54, 95% CI [.09, .99], t(208) = −2.235, p = .02). The current study provides preliminary evidence to suggest that preconceived beliefs about social hierarchy and gender inequality may impact romantic and platonic interactions between humans and robots. Limitations and future directions are also discussed.

Keywords

Close relationships gender human-robot interaction interpersonal relationships prejudice robots sex sexuality

Alan Turing’s (1950) work as a computer scientist inspired a field of research in which scientists would examine the “thinking machine”—a machine that both scientists and science fiction writers would refer to as “robots”. In modern times, the engineering of robots has advanced to encompass “human-made autonomous entities that interact with humans in a humanlike way” (Zhao, 2006, p. 405). Some researchers believe that social robots, or robots that we use to satisfy our social needs, are inevitable due to the already prevalent use of human-like robots in science fiction (Lorenčík et al., 2013), hospitality (Bowen & Morosan, 2018; Hanson & Locatelli, 2022; Kuo et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2011), and for personal use (Döring & Pöschl, 2018; Scheutz & Arnold, 2016). Previous literature suggests that humans can have close relationships with human-like robots, in intellectual (Reeves & Nass, 1996; Sundar et al., 2016), educational (Brink & Wellman, 2020; Leyzberg et al., 2014; Spaulding, 2016), romantic (Cheok et al., 2016; Samani et al., 2010), and/or sexual contexts (Appel et al., 2019; Döring & Pöschl, 2018; Kim & Kim, 2012; Scheutz & Arnold, 2016). Additionally, researchers have begun to examine personality traits that positively influence an individual’s responsiveness and closeness with technology (Döring et al., 2014; Mori, 1970); however, little research has focused on the beliefs that predispose someone to have an interest in robot partners.

The current study aims to further this body of research by examining how interest in friendship (“robofriendship”) and/or sex (“robosexuality”) with robots is influenced by preconceived beliefs about social hierarchy and in-group versus out-group beliefs utilizing an ambivalent-sexism theoretical lens. While some scholars have raised issues with the abundance of definitions and approaches to examining robotic technology (Hanson, 2023), including Human-Robot Interaction (Lohse, 2009), Erobotics (Dubé & Anctil, 2020), and Lovotics (Samani & Saadatian, 2012), the current study does not examine interaction with robots. The terms robosexuality and robofriendship are specific to this study due to a lack of existing measures for the study of interest in robots. Examining individual differences and social dynamics that may relate to interest in engaging with social robots may provide important insight on potential ethical and moral issues with the integration of robots into daily life and insight into the nuances of human interaction, in particular in instances where diversity fosters vulnerability to power and accessibility.

The fields of Human-Robot Interaction (HRI; Kriz et al., 2010; Lohse, 2009), Erobotics (Dubé & Anctil, 2020; Dubé et al., 2021) and Lovotics (Samani et al., 2010; Samani & Saadatian, 2012) examine the compatibility of humans and robots in platonic and sexual contexts. Evidence suggests that if a robot looks exactly human, people may want to be friends with it (Carpenter et al., 2006; Ezer et al., 2009). Early research proposed the idea of robots as friends, with the ideal being a robot that would be indistinguishable from humans (Breazeal and Scassellati, 1999). Starting with the Tamagochi (Pettman, 2009; Turkle et al., 2006), robots as friends has mainly been studied in children—Fior and colleagues (2010) demonstrated that children treat humanlike robots as human companions, Turkle and colleagues (2006) found that robot pets elicit similar emotions as that from a real pet, including when that pet dies, and Brink and Wellman (2020) found that children give robots and adults the same levels of trust. In comparison, adults prefer the idea of a robot being more like a personal assistant than a friend (Dautenhahn et al., 2005; Locsin & Ito, 2018). This has changed in recent years with people finding enjoyment in conversing with chatbots (Ciechanowski et al., 2019; Dang & Liu, 2021), and, crucially, the introduction of “robot friends” in senior communities where people who lack human connection can substitute it with robots (Gasteiger et al., 2021). There is also evidence that engaging in friendships with robots can help remedy feelings of loneliness as well (Louie et al., 2014; McColl & Nejat, 2013).

Following the publication of David Levy’s Love and Sex with Robots (2007), researchers have become interested in using robots as a replacement for human sexual partners. This has raised a number of ethical, moral, and sociocultural implications (Hanson & Locatelli, 2022), including consent and autonomy (Amuda & Tijani, 2012; Danaher, 2019; Lin et al., 2011; Richardson, 2016), motivations for purchasing (Szczuka & Krämer, 2017), infidelity, age, race, and personality in robot design (Cox-George & Bewley, 2018; Danaher, 2019; Eggleton, 2018; Nordmo et al., 2020; Rothstein et al., 2021; Royakkers & van Est, 2015; Van Huizen, 2020), and the focus of this research, interest and attraction to robots as sexual partners. Despite stigma around robotic technology, the introduction of robots as sexual partners can be useful across contexts - including treatment of sexual dysfunctions; circumvention of adverse sexual outcomes related to pedophilia and/or sexual violence; and sexual satisfaction for elderly or disabled individuals (Hanson & Locatelli, 2022).

While the field of digisexuality looks at sexual attraction to technology broadly (e.g., McArthur & Twist, 2017), the term “robosexuality”, in the context of this article, engages with the idea that people may develop a preference for robots, as well as, or over, people. Some scholars have already examined individual factors relating to individuals’ interest in sex with robots. Szczuka et al. (2019), for example, argued that an individual’s motivation to engage with artificial sexual technology is partially dependent on the strength of the individual’s ability to maintain the illusion that the robot is a social being in order to facilitate social connection and sexual satisfaction. Scheutz and Arnold (2016) found that approximately 60% of respondents felt that sex with a robot counts as infidelity. In particular, individuals with restricted sociosexual orientations (i.e., less interest in casual sex, Penke & Asendorpf, 2008) reported disgust toward someone using a sex robot, regardless of whether that person was married or single (Koverola et al., 2020). Additionally, people with restricted sociosexual orientations may be less interested in sex robots if the relationship with the robot is primed as extra-dyadic (i.e., it is considered to be a partner rather than just a sex toy). Individuals with unrestricted sociosexual orientations may be more interested in sex with a robot because it might simulate casual sex and allow them to have multiple partners regardless of relationship status. The findings of Koverola and colleagues (2020) highlight the societal factors influencing interactions between robots and humans; if robots are viewed as “human”, then they may receive similar treatment to humans, but if robots are viewed as tools, they may be regarded as below humans.

Following the principles of ambivalent-sexism theory, men’s interested in engaging in sexual relations with feminine-coded robots (e.g., Appel et al., 2019; Oleksy & Wnuk, 2021) may be linked to hostile sexist disdain for women’s sexuality. Whether robots are treated like humans may ultimately be determined by whether people view robots as part of a same or different social group. Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality characteristic that describes individuals’ desire to “establish and maintain hierarchically structured intergroup relations regardless of the position of one’s own group within this hierarchy” (Sidanius et al., 2015, p. 152). Higher SDO scores have previously been related to the endorsement of racial, economical, gender, and sexual inequalities (e.g., Çetiner & Van Assche, 2021). Individuals with higher SDO scores may assign robots a lower position within larger social structures, and interact with robots based on the perception of the robot’s relative status to them. One study found that robots that were part of a respondents’ ingroup were treated better than humans who were part of the outgroup, but ingroup robots were treated worse than human ingroup members (Fraune et al., 2017; Fraune et al., 2020). Ingroup robots were also more liked than outgroup robots, and ingroup robots were treated with more humanity compared to outgroup robots (Eyssel & Kuchenbrandt, 2012; Häring et al., 2014). Individuals have also reported viewing humanlike robots as an outgroup despite perceiving a high degree of humanness in the robots (Bruckenberger et al., 2013). Individuals who score low in SDO may be more interested in friendship with robots due to stronger notions about social equity and justice, and greater perceived value of friendship reciprocity (Yamazaki et al., 2012). Conversely, individuals with higher SDO scores may be more interested in sexual relations with a robot due to the perceived lack of power and autonomy of the robot, allowing the user to exert uninhibited sexual power over the robot (Döring & Pöschl, 2018). These findings suggest that group inclusion and social hierarchies may influence attitudes and behaviors around robots, which may influence the treatment of robots as friends or partners.

Although robotic agents are not the focus of this study, it is worth mentioning the current social discourse around robots, including the effect of the “uncanny valley”. The uncanny valley effect is a phenomenon first proposed by Mori (1970) that describes a potential negative emotional response that individuals have towards human-like robotic technology. Robots that approach, but fail to reach, humanness (e.g., near-perfect humanoid robots, dead bodies, and prosthetic limbs - Palomäki et al., 2018), evoke discomfort in human observers (Mara & Appel, 2015; Mori et al., 2012). Robots are also disliked when they don’t “act” human enough or violate social norms (Carpenter et al., 2006), and are considered “capable of subjugating or ending humanity” if they are given too much power (Bruckenberger et al., 2013). Negative evaluations of robotic technology may transfer onto the users themselves, in that individuals who declare interest in, or use, social robots may face stigma from others, resulting in decreased interest more generally (Dubé et al., 2023). Indeed, there is also evidence that as sexual technology gains more intelligence and “humanness”, perceived stigma against potential users increases, which influences interest in engaging with sex robots (Dubé et al., 2023).

Robotic engineering is an industry dominated and consumed by primarily heterosexual men, and as such, favors the creation of aesthetically appealing feminine robots (Donald, 2019; Hanson & Locatelli, 2022; Marchetti-Bowick, 2009). A common practice by robotic engineers is giving robotic assistants feminine names (e.g., Siri and Alexa) and voices (Bergen, 2016; Donald, 2019). The feminine-coded design of digital assistants or social robots may serve to reinforce sexist notions about the social roles of women in domestic and labor relations (Glick & Fiske, 2001). Some scholars argue that the impending proliferation of feminized sex robots will only reinforce gender stereotypes and incite gendered mistreatment (Hanson & Locatelli, 2022). For example, feminine robots are regarded as more communal, better at childcare and household maintenance, and were much preferred for completing domestic chores compared to gender-neutral or masculine robots (Carpenter et al., 2009; Eyssel & Hegel, 2012). Robots with hourglass figures, feminine faces, and feminine voices were preferred among men, and seen as more communal than robots with an equal waist-to-hip ratio among men, while women had no preferences among robot voices and faces (Bernotat et al., 2019; González-González et al., 2020; Hou & Ye, 2019). In a study examining the sexual appeal of robots, men liked sex robots more than women did (Appel et al., 2019), and men were more likely to donate money to a charity fund when the robot solicitor had a feminine voice, while women again had no voice preference (Siegel et al., 2009).

Regarding ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 2001), if people ascribe gender to robots, we can examine how gendered beliefs relate to people’s interest in engaging with robots for sex or for friendship. Hostile sexism is “an adversarial view of gender relations in which women are perceived as seeking to control men” (Glick & Fiske, 2001, p. 109), which leads individuals to believe that men are obligated to exert power over women. If individuals believe that a robot embodies gender, they may also express gendered hostility toward female-presenting robots (Bergen, 2016; Bernotat et al., 2019). In fact, data on the effects of sex robots and treatment of women is inconclusive as to whether they would actually reduce instances of sexual violence at all (Hanson & Locatelli, 2022). Given the salience of gender in robots, friendship and sex with a robot may be explained by ambivalent sexism theory. The design of feminine-coded sex robots, digital assistants, and social robots may be influenced by both benevolent and hostile sexist attitudes towards women, in that robots that are ascribed to domestic labor and display communal, nurturing traits are heavily preferred, and interest in sex with robots may be influenced by disdain for, and simulated subjugation of, women’s sexuality.

The present study

The goal of the current study is to examine if gender, hostile sexism, social dominance orientation, and sociosexual orientation relate to respondents’ interest in robosexuality or robofriendship through the lens of ambivalent sexism theory. Previous research has shown evidence for the relationship between how individuals treat other people and the ways they treat robots (Reeves & Nass, 1996). The current study draws from the works of Appel et al. (2019), Eyssel et al. (2012), Fraune et al. (2017), Fraune et al., (2020), and Koverola et al. (2020) on how beliefs about social hierarchy, group identification, and personality characteristics relate to how individuals perceive and interact with robots in both platonic and sexual contexts.

The present study uses an analysis measuring the relationship between robosexuality and robofriendship, hostile sexism, social dominance orientation, and sociosexuality. For this analysis, the following five hypotheses are tested: (1) gender will be associated with robosexuality, such that men in our sample will have greater robosexuality scores than women, (2) hostile sexism will be positively associated with interest in sex with robots, (3) sociosexual orientation will be positively associated with desire for sex with a robot, (4) social dominance orientation will be associated with interest in robot partners for both friendship and sex, and (5) hostile sexism will mediate the relationship between gender and robosexuality (i.e., men will score higher in hostile sexism than women, and in turn, higher hostile sexism scores will be associated heightened desire for a sex robot). Overall, this analysis offers a glimpse into respondents’ opinions of other groups, and if the interest in robot partners relates respondents’ interests in sex and friendship with robots (Table 1).

Table 1.

Variable means and correlations with 95% confidence intervals.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Hostile sexism	2.96	0.84
2. SDO	3.66	1.29	.57** [.47, .65]
3. SOI	4.53	1.14	−.11 [−.23, .03]	−.09 [−.22, .04]
4. Robosexuality	3.54	1.38	.18** [.05, .30]	.24** [.11, .36]	−.17* [−.29, −.04]
5. Robofriendship	3.38	0.91	−.20** [−.32, −.07]	−.14* [−.27, −.01]	.02 [−.11, .15]	−.19** [−.31, −.06]

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Hostile Sexism was measured on a scale of 1–5. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), Robosexuality, and Robofriendship were measured on scales of 1–7. Sociosexual Orientation (SOI) was measured on a scale from 1–9. Numbers in square brackets refer to the 95% confidence intervals.

Methods

Participants and procedure

223 undergraduate students were recruited to complete the study from a western Canadian university. Exclusion criteria included anyone under the age of 18, non-English speakers, and anyone who completed less than 25% of the survey. Individuals who identified as transgender or gender non-conforming were excluded from the sample (n = 11) due to insufficient numbers for comparison. Therefore, data from a total of 212 participants were retained in the current analysis (Table 2). The majority of participants identified as female (74%), heterosexual (82%), white (74%), and between the ages of 18–23. In exchange for participation, participants received 0.5 course credits through the academic research participation program SONA.

Table 2.

Gender means and differences with effect sizes.

Variable	Men	Women	95% CI	t	p	d
Hostile sexism	3.29 (.57)	2.85 (.89)	[ .19, .69]	3.430	<.001	.54
SDO	4.00 (1.17)	3.54 (1.32)	[.07, .86]	2.320	.021	.37
SOI	4.63 (1.15)	4.45 (1.14)	[-.17, .53]	1.003	.317	.16
Robosexuality	3.96 (1.37)	3.39 (1.35)	[.15, 1.00]	2.684	.008	.42
Robofriendship	3.19 (.76)	3.47 (.95)	[−.55, .01]	−1.914	.057	.30

Note. Hostile Sexism is measured on a scale of 1–5. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), Robosexuality and Robofriendship are measured on scales of 1–7. Sociosexual Orientation (SOI) was measured on a scale from 1–9.

Participants were given consent forms detailing the study and a link to an online survey package that included questionnaires asking about sociosexual orientation, hostile sexism, social dominance orientation, and the following two prompts about robofriendship and robosexuality, respectively:

You win a raffle tomorrow and for your prize you are given a robo-friend. This robot 1) looks and feels human and 2) acts and behaves in a believably human way. Imagine how this robot might look or act, and how you might engage with such a robot. Answer the following questions on a scale of Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.

You get a call from the manufacturer that handles the raffle. Since you have so much experience with your robo-friend, they are giving you the opportunity to try out a robot from their adult brand of sex robots. All you have to do is answer the questions in this survey.

The current study aimed to make the distinction of investigating individuals’ interest in generic, non-specified social robots, rather robots created purely for the purposes of sex. As such, efforts were taken to diminish the possibility of priming participants to envision overly-sexualized, sex “dolls” or robots, including a deliberate ordering of the prompts to display the friendship items before the sexuality items to avoid conflating social robots with sex robots. Following completion of the survey, participants were given a debrief of the study with an email address to contact for further information or assistance.

Measures

Reported scale reliabilities were assessed using Revelle’s omega total (ω), which estimates reliability more accurately than Cronbach’s alpha (McNeish, 2018). Omega and alpha coefficients operate similarly, in that acceptable minimum thresholds are identical.

Sociosexual orientation

Sociosexual orientation (SOI) was measured with the revised sociosexual orientation inventory (SOI-R; Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). The SOI-R includes 9 questions (e.g., “Sex without love is ok”) to which respondents indicate their agreement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Scores from all items were averaged to create a global SOI score, with higher scores indicating a tendency towards unrestricted sociosexual orientation. The reliability for this measure was lower than ideal (ω = .62), but since this scale has been well-validated elsewhere, it was still used in the current analyses.

Hostile sexism index

Hostile sexism was measured using the Hostile Sexism facet from the Ambivalent Sexism Scale (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996). The ASI includes 21 items in which participants indicate their agreement on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of sexist beliefs. Participants completed 11 items pertaining to hostile sexism (ASI-H; e.g., “Women are too easily offended”) which were averaged to create a global hostile sexism score. Reliability for this measure in this sample was adequate (ω = .88).

Social dominance orientation scale

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) was measured with the 16-item Social Dominance Orientation Scale (Pratto et al., 2006). Participants indicate their agreement to various phrases (e.g., “Some groups of people are more worthy than others”) on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater social dominance orientation and endorsement of social hierarchy. Scores from all items were averaged to create a global SDO score. Reliability for this measure in this sample was adequate (ω = .89).

Friendship qualities scale - adapted

The friendship qualities scale (FQS) was designed to capture qualities that children and young adults seek in potential friendships (Bukowski et al., 1994). The original scale required participants to identify and respond regarding a specific friend while completing the questionnaire, however, for thist study, all participants were instructed to envision a robotic friend instead. The FQS includes 23 items (e.g., “I would spend all my free time with my friend”) which participants indicated their agreement on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The language used in each phrase was adapted to reflect the robotic nature of the friend (e.g., “friend” to “robo-friend”), and a single item asking participants about going to a friend’s house was removed. Scores from all items were averaged to create a single robofriendship score, with higher scores indicating greater interest in forming platonic relationships with robots. Reliability in this sample was adequate (ω = .83).

Robosexuality identification scale - adapted

The Asexuality Identification Scale (AIS; Yule et al., 2015) was adapted to capture respondents’ attitudes regarding engaging in sexual relations with robots. The AIS is a 12-item questionnaire (e.g., “I lack interest in sexual activity [with a robot]” and “The thought of sexual activity [with a robot] repulses me”) which participants indicated their agreement on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). The language in this scale was adapted to reflect sexual activity with robots (i.e., changing “other people” to “robots”). Items endorsing sex with a robot were reverse-coded; therefore, scores from all items were averaged to create a total robosexuality score, with higher scores indicating greater interest in engaging in sexual activity with a robot. Reliability in this sample was adequate (ω = .83).

Statistical analysis

To address hypothesis one, a series of t-tests was conducted to explore whether gender differences exist regarding interest in robosexuality. To address hypotheses two through four, stepwise regression analyses were conducted to explore the relationship between the belief variables and interest in friendship/sex with a robot, with gender included as a moderating variable in each of these analyses. In order to address hypothesis five, a mediation analysis was used to explore whether hostile sexism mediates the relationship between gender and robosexuality.

Results

Sensitivity analysis

Due to the exploratory nature of this study, we ran a sensitivity analysis to see if we had the power to detect the effects within our study. The smallest calculated effect size across our regressions was .017, and the power we had to detect this effect was roughly .492. Using the values calculated from the mediation, we found that our power to detect the effect was about .692. In rerunning the analysis with a higher sample, with all other values being true, a minimum sample of 275 would have given a power of .80.

Correlations

As expected, hostile sexism and social dominance orientation were highly correlated, since both variables pertain to unfavorable beliefs about other groups. These variables, in turn, were both negatively correlated with robofriendship, in that people who scored highly in SDO or ASI-H reported low interest in platonic relationships with robots. Surprisingly, sociosexual orientation was negatively associated with robosexuality, in that people with an unrestricted sociosexuality reported low interest in sexual relationships with robots. Robosexuality and robofriendship were negatively correlated, such that greater interest in a friendship with robots was associated with lower interest in engaging in sexual activity with a robot.

Gender differences

Significant gender differences were found in SDO, ASI-H, and robosexuality, which in all cases, men scored higher than women (t(211) = 3.430, p < .001, t(211) = 2.320, p = .021, and t(211) = 2.684, p = .008, respectively). For SDO and ASI-H in particular, effect sizes were moderate to large, suggesting stark differences between men’s and women’s beliefs about other groups (d = .37 and d = .54, respectively). Hypothesis 1 was supported in that men scored higher in robosexuality than women; however, t skewed distributions for men and women indicated that both men and women were generally less interested in sex with robots. Effect size for this difference was moderate (d = 0.42). There were no significant gender differences found for SOI or robofriendship. Men and women both had similar scores on sociosexual orientation that were both above the midpoint, indicating that they equally endorsed a relatively unrestricted sociosexuality (Table 2).

Regression analyses

Three stepwise regression analyses were conducted to explore if gender moderated the effect of each belief variable (gender by SDO, gender by ASI-H, and gender by SOI) on interest in engaging in sexual activity with a robot. Hypothesis 2 was supported, in that there were significant main effects of hostile sexism, with hostile sexism positively predicting robosexuality (β = .16, b = .27, 95% CI [.03, .30], t(209) = 2.364, p = .019). However, contrary to hypothesis 3, sociosexual orientation negatively predicted robosexuality (β = −.20, b = −.25, 95% CI [−.40, −.09], t(209) = −3.063, p = .002). Main effects of social dominance orientation on robosexuality were unobserved for both men and women. Interactions between gender and belief variables on robosexuality were largely insignificant barring one case; significant gender differences were present at low levels of SDO (β = −.30, b = −.93, 95% CI [-1.6, −.26], t(208) = −2.746, p = .007), in which men were more likely to be interested in sexual activity with a robot at lower levels of SDO compared to women (Table 3).

Table 3.

Hierarchical Linear Regressions predicting Robosexuality.

Predictor	β	b	95% CI	t	p	ΔR²	f ²
Step 1 (df = 209)						.058**	.026
Gender	−.14	−.45	[−.28, −.01]	−2.096	.037
Hostile sexism	.16	.27	[.03, .30]	2.364	.019
Step 2 (df = 208)						.058**	<.001
Hostile sexism × Gender	.02	.02	[−.065, .069]	.058	.954
Step 1 (df = 209)						.078**	.047
Gender	−.15	−.46	[−.28, −.02]	−2.204	.029
Social dominance orientation	.21	.23	[.08, .35]	3.186	.017
Step 2 (df = 208)						.091**	.013
Social dominance orientation × Gender	.52	.30	[−.04, .064]	1.751	.081
Step 1 (df = 209)						.075***	.044
Gender	−.20	−.62	[−.34, −.07]	−2.942	.004
Sociosexual orientation	−.20	−.25	[−.40, −.09]	−3.063	.002
Step 2 (df = 208)						.075**	<.001
Sociosexual orientation × Gender	.05	.03	[−.04, .064]	.189	.851

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Similar results were found for the effect of each belief variable on robofriendship. Three additional stepwise regression analyses were conducted to determine if gender moderated the effect of each belief variable (gender by SDO, gender by ASI-H, and gender by SOI) on interest in friendship with a robot. A significant main effect of hostile sexism on robofriendship was found, in that hostile sexism negatively predicted robofriendship (β = −.16, b = −.18, 95% CI [-.30, −.03], t(209) = −2.369, p = .019). No main effects were found for either SDO or SOI. Similar to robosexuality, there was a significant interaction for gender and SDO on robofriendship—at lower levels of SDO, women were more interested in platonic friendship with a robot compared to men (β = .26, b = .54, 95% CI [.09, .99], t(208) = −2.235, p = .02). Hypothesis 4 was unsupported - although significant interaction effects were found between gender and SDO on robosexuality and robofriendship, the direction of those effects were contrary to the original hypothesis (Table 4).

Table 4.

Hierarchical linear regressions predicting robofriendship.

Predictor	β	b	95% CI	t	p	ΔR²	f ²
Step 1 (df = 210)						.043*	.027
Gender	.09	.19	[−.04, .23]	1.337	.183
Hostile sexism	−.16	−.18	[−.30, −.03]	−2.369	.019
Step 2 (df = 209)						.047*	.004
Hostile sexism × Gender	−.37	−.22	[−.66, .23]	−.950	.343
Step 1 (df = 209)						.033**	.017
Gender	.11	.23	[−.26, .01]	1.606	.109
Social dominance orientation	−.13	−.09	[−.03, .25]	−1.865	.064
Step 2 (df = 208)						.047**	.014
Social dominance orientation × Gender	−.53	−.20	[−.44, .03]	−1.730	.085
Step 1 (df = 209)						.018	.001
Gender	.13	.28	[−.00, .27]	1.943	.053
Sociosexual orientation	.04	.03	[−.10, .17]	.531	.596
Step 2 (df = 208)						.018	<.001
Sociosexual orientation × Gender	−.20	−.09	[−.34, .16]	−.726	.468

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Mediation analysis

A mediation model was constructed to explore the indirect effects of gender on robosexuality through hostile sexism (i.e., gender → hostile sexism → Robosexuality). Hypothesis 5 was partially supported, in that hostile sexism partially mediated the relationship between gender and robosexuality. Regressions of robosexuality on gender and robosexuality on hostile sexism confirmed that men scored higher on robosexuality (β = −.18, b = −.57, 95% CI [−.99, −.15], t(210) = 2.68, p = .008, ΔR² = .29) and higher on hostile sexism (β = −.23, b = −.44, 95% CI [−.69, −.19], t(210) = −3.43, p = <.001, ΔR² = .49) than women. After controlling for gender, higher hostile sexism was revealed to significantly predict increased robosexuality (β = .16, b = .27, 95% CI [.04, .49], t(209) = 2.36, p = .019, ΔR² = .05). Lastly, the lavaan function in R (Rosseel, 2012) using 5,000 bootstrap samples was used to estimate the 95% bias-corrected CI of the indirect path from gender to Robosexuality via hostile sexism (i.e., path ab). Results revealed that the indirect path was statistically significant, indirect path = −.12, SE = .057, 95% CI [−.237, −.018]. The direct path was also still significant, direct path = −.45, SE = .220, 95% CI [−.883, −.014], suggesting that hostile sexism does not fully explain why men are more interested in sex with robots compared to women.

General discussion

The results of this study support the idea that preconceived ideas about social hierarchies and gender inequality relate to individuals’ interest in robosexuality or robofriendship. In accordance with the hypotheses, it was found that men scored higher in hostile sexism, SDO, and robosexuality, whereas women scored higher on robofriendship. Although previous research has found gender differences in robosexuality (e.g., Appel et al., 2019; Nordmo et al., 2020), there has been only one other successful investigation of gender differences in robofriendship preferences in adult samples (Eyssel et al., 2012).

The relationship between robosexuality, robofriendship, and the belief variables help us to understand our participants’ views on robots. It was found that hostile sexism positively predicted robosexuality, particularly for men, and the mediation model revealed that hostile sexism partially mediated the relationship between gender and robosexuality. From this analysis, it appears that men who endorse hostile sexist beliefs are more interested in sex with robots. In regards to ambivalent-sexism theory, it is worth noting that benevolent sexism was also tested, however, was entirely non-significant. This suggests that, based on Glick and Fiske’s (2001) conceptualization of hostile sexism, men’s interest in sexual relationships with robots may be rooted in anger, disdain, and distrust of women. This finding also suggests that people who have hostile views toward women are perhaps interested in acting out those beliefs with sex robots. Given that hostile sexism is associated with domestic violence and retaliatory behaviours towards women (e.g., Agadullina et al., 2022), this finding suggests that men may find female sex robots desirable because these robots allow for simulations of violent sexual acts with something they perceive as female without social repercussions. Additionally, hostile sexism negatively predicted robofriendship, in that those who endorsed sexist beliefs reported less interest in platonic friendships with robots. Taken together, it appears that individuals who endorse sexist beliefs view robots primarily as tools, rather than as an extension of humanity. The findings of Koverola and colleagues (2020) support this notion, in that viewing sex robots as tools still render them useful, although not deserving of the same care and respect as that of a human. Although these findings may raise concern, some scholars have suggested that the use of sex robots under these conditions could mitigate instances of sexual misconduct with humans (e.g., Cox-George & Bewley, 2018; Hanson & Locatelli, 2022).

The relationship between robosexuality, robofriendship, and SDO provide additional insight and expound on the above findings. Positive associations between the belief variables suggest that individuals who score higher in SDO would also be more interested in robosexuality and less interested in robofriendship, however, no main effects of SDO were observed for men and women on robofriendship or robosexuality. However, at lower levels of SDO, men were more interested in robosexuality compared to women, and women were more interested in robofriendship compared to men. At higher levels of SDO, there were no gender differences. It appears that for men, interest in robosexuality was high regardless of social dominance orientation, whereas women’s interest in robosexuality was dependent on their level of SDO, with higher levels of SDO predicting greater interest in sex with robots. Additionally, women's interest in robofriendship was lower when their SDO ratings were high. This finding is interesting given that hostile sexism can be considered an endorsement of a social hierarchy based on gender, in which traditional heteronormative gender roles are perceived as just and correct (Glick & Fiske, 2001). It suggests that, for men, the gender of the robot takes precedence over other group differences, in that heterosexual men view sex robots as being female first, and as a robot second. It may be that individuals are primed to conceptualize robots as being female, given the prevalence of technological assistants like Apple’s Siri or Amazon’s Alexa. If this were the case, it could be theorized that heteronormative sexual scripts that promote sexual domination of, and discourage friendships with, women apply to robots as well. This theory could explain why men who endorse hostile sexist beliefs report higher interest in robosexuality and lower interest in robofriendship, regardless of social dominance orientation. This is echoed by Szczuka et al. (2019), who argued that engaging in sex with a robot is partially dependent on whether the sexual interaction fits within the individuals’ views and actions regarding sexual interactions.

An interesting finding worth noting is that, contrary to the hypothesis, sociosexual orientation negatively predicted robosexuality, in that individuals with more unrestricted sociosexual orientations reported lower interest in engaging in sex with robots. It was originally hypothesized that individuals with unrestricted sociosexuality would consider sexual interactions with a robot to be a form of casual or polyamorous sex, however, it appears that within this sample, sexual interactions with robots cannot replace or replicate sexual interactions with humans, resulting in a lack of interest in sexual interactions with them.

Limitations and future directions

Interpretation of this research should be done with caution due to limitations in both sample and methodology. Firstly, the size and demographics of the sample present issues with both the gendered analyses and generalizability of the findings. Although the sample was determined to have adequate power for most analyses, others were considered below the desirable threshold. While we were slightly underpowered to detect certain effects, finding the partial mediation of hostile sexism on gender and robosexuality suggests that hostile sexism plays a role in the relationship. It is also possible that, with a sample of 275, we may have found a full mediation. This study, being exploratory, leaves room to be explored further, and suggests sample size recommendations for measurements of group beliefs, robosexuality, and robofriendship. Within the sample, there was an unequal gender ratio and an underrepresentation of diverse racial, gender, and sexual orientations, which affect both the power of the gendered analyses and the generalizability of these findings across diverse populations (Heinrich et al., 2012). The current sample consisted of primarily white, westernized, female, heterosexual individuals, with some university education. Considering social stigmas that persist in Western cultures regarding the existence of, and interactions with, social robotic technology (Dubé et al., 2023; Heinrich et al., 2012), future studies should endeavor to sample from a diverse range of age, race, cultural, and educational demographics to establish a more nuanced understanding of who and why individuals may or may not be interested in sex or friendship with robots. Furthermore, existing stigmas against robots, including the uncanny valley effect (Dubé et al., 2023) may also relate to whether or not someone is interested in a robot for sex or for friendship—in other words, social desirability may have affected participants’ interest in engaging with social robots.

Secondly, the lack of validated robot-centered measures limits the generalizability of our findings. Although our measures for robosexuality, based on the AIS (α = .95; Zheng & Su, 2018) and FQS (.71 ≤ α ≤ .86; Bukowski et al., 1994) have been shown to be reliable in the past, the reliability within the context of robots has yet to be determined. There are scales which examine conceptualizations, expectations, and preferences for robots (Robert & van den Bergh, 2014; Lu et al., 2019; Morsunbul, 2019; Nomura & Kanda, 2015), however, these scales were designed to examine direct interactions with robot prototypes, and were outside the scope of the current study. The hypothetical nature of this study required individuals to imagine fictitious robot partners, and depending on the participant’s view of robots, using a different scale may have affected their responses. While this study introduces new terminology that is independent of previous research in social robotics (e.g., Dubé et al., 2021), future research can work to integrate the findings of this paper with the theory of lovotics and erobotics presented by other scholars in the field (e.g., Dubé & Anctil, 2020; Samani & Saadatian, 2012).

Conclusion

Science fiction as a form of entertainment has been widely popular for nearly a century, and its intrigue has inspired the creation of many ground-breaking, innovative robotic technologies that have been so readily accepted into daily life. The current study provides preliminary evidence to suggest that preconceived beliefs about social hierarchy and gender inequality may impact romantic and platonic interactions between humans and robots. While studies like the current one are speculative and hypothetical in nature (e.g., Döring et al., 2020), they present researchers with opportunities to understand how human beings may react to the formation and integration of social robots before they exist. Understanding how humans perceive the future of interactions with social robots allows for ethical and moral debates to occur before problems begin to manifest. The current study serves as evidence that interactions with social robots may operate within the same frameworks of social hierarchies and gender ideologies that exist throughout society now. Investigating human-robot interactions is not only important to proactively address these issues with the integration of technology in daily life, but it can also provide insight into how human beings interact with each other, especially those that they perceive as different or lesser.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

Thanks to D. Stephen Lindsay,Danu Anthony Stinson (both of the University of Victoria),and Rhonda N. Balzarini for their support in conducting this research.

Author's Note

This research was originally conducted at the University of Victoria as part of the lead author's Master's thesis.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Correction (March 2024):

Acknowledgement section and Author's note have been added in the article.

Ethical Statement

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices,the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data in the research can be publicly posted,and can be obtained at

. The materials used in the research cannot be publicly posted but are available upon request via email at connorleshner@trentu.ca .

ORCID iDs

Connor E. Leshner

Jessica R. Johnson

References

Agadullina

Lovakov

Balezina

Gulevich

(2022). Ambivalent sexism and violence toward women: A meta‐analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(5–6), 819–859. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2855

Amuda

Y. J.

Tijani

I. B.

(2012). Ethical and legal implications of sex robot: An islamic perspective. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 03(06), 19–28. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2008011

Appel

Marker

Mara

(2019). Otakuism and the appeal of sex robots. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 569. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00569

Bergen

(2016). I’d blush if i could’: Digital assistants, disembodied cyborgs and the problem of gender. Word and Text: A Journal of Literary Studies and Linguistics, 6(1), 95–113. https://jlsl.upg-ploiesti.ro/site_engleza/documente/documente/Arhiva/Word_and_text_2016/06_Bergen.pdf

Bernotat

Eyssel

F. A.

Sachse

(2019). The (fe)male robot: How robot body shape impacts first impressions and trust towards robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(3), 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00562-7

Bowen

J. T.

Morosan

(2018). Beware hospitality industry: The robots are coming. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 10(6), 726–733. https://doi.org/10.1108/whatt-07-2018-0045

Breazeal

Scassellati

(1999). How to build robots that make friends and influence people. In Proceedings 1999 IEEE/RSJ International conference on intelligent robots and systems. Human and environment friendly robots with high intelligence and emotional quotients (Cat. No.99CH36289). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.1999.812787

Brink

K. A.

Wellman

H. M.

(2020). Robot teachers for children? Young children trust robots depending on their perceived accuracy and agency. Developmental Psychology, 56(7), 1268–1277. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000884

Bruckenberger

Weiss

Mirnig

Strasser

Stadler

Tscheligi

(2013). The good, the bad, the weird: Audience evaluation of a “Real” robot in relation to science fiction and mass media. In Herrmann

Pearson

M. J.

Lenz

Bremner

Spiers

Leonards

(Eds.), Social robotics (Vol. 8239, pp. 301–310). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_30

10.

Bukowski

W. M.

Hoza

Boivin

(1994). Measuring friendship quality during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the friendship qualities scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(3), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407594113011

11.

Carpenter

Davis

J. M.

Erwin-Stewart

Lee

T. R.

Bransford

J. D.

Vye

(2009). Gender representation and humanoid robots designed for domestic use. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(3), 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0016-4

12.

Carpenter

Eliot

Schultheis

(2006). Machine or friend: 5th conference on design and emotion 2006. In Proceedings from the 5th conference on design and emotion 2006. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865197596&partnerID=8YFLogxK

13.

Çetiner

Ş. D.

Van Assche

(2021). Prejudice in Turkey and Belgium: The cross‐cultural comparison of correlations of right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation with sexism, homophobia, and racism. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 21(1), 1167–1183. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12280

14.

Cheok

A. D.

Levy

Karunanayaka

(2016). Lovotics: Love and sex with robots. In Karpouzis

Yannakakis (Eds.), Emotion in games: Theory and praxis (pp. 303–328). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41316-7_18

15.

Ciechanowski

Przegalinska

Magnuski

Gloor

(2019). In the shades of the uncanny valley: An experimental study of human–chatbot interaction uncanny valley: An experimental study of human–chatbot interaction. Future Generation Computer Systems Computer Systems, 92, 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.01.055

16.

Cox-George

Bewley

(2018). I, sex robot: The health implications of the sex robot industry. BMJ sexual & reproductive health, 44(3), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2017-200012

17.

Danaher

(2019). Building better sex robots: Lessons from feminist pornography. In Zhou

Fischer

M. H.

(Eds.), AI love you, (pp. 133–147). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19734-6_7

18.

Dang

Liu

(2021). Robots are friends as well as foes: Ambivalent attitudes toward mindful and mindless AI robots in the United States and China. Computers in Human Behavior Behavior, 115(1/2), Article 106612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106612

19.

Dautenhahn

Woods

Kaouri

Walters

M. L.

Koay

K. L.

Werry

(2005). What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler? In 2005 IEEE/RSJ International conference on intelligent robots and systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/iros.2005.1545189

20.

Doering

Poeschl

Gross

Bley

Martin

Boehme

(2014). User-centered design and evaluation of a mobile shopping robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(2), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0257-8

21.

Donald

(2019). Societal implications of gendering AI [MA Thesis]. Arizona State University.

22.

Döring

Mohseni

Walter

(2020). Design, use, and effects of sex dolls and sex robots: Scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(7), Article e18551. https://doi.org/10.2196/18551

23.

Döring

Pöschl

(2018). Sex toys, sex dolls, sex robots: Our under-researched bed-fellows. Sexologies, 27(3), Article e51–e55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sexol.2018.05.009

24.

Dubé

Anctil

(2020). Foundations of erobotics. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(6), 1205–1233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00706-0

25.

Dubé

Santaguida

Anctil

Leshner

Vachon

Johnson

(2021). Technology-based sexualities. In Encyclopedia of sexuality and gender (pp. 1–12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59531-3_70-1

26.

Dubé

Santaguida

Anctil

Zhu

Thomasse

Giaccari

Oassey

Vachon

D. D.

Johnson

A. F.

(2023). Perceived stigma and erotic technology: From sex toys to erobots. Psychology & Sexuality, 14(1), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2022.2067783

27.

Eggleton

(2018). Comment on ‘I, sex robot: The health implications of the sex robot industry’ BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, 45(1), 78.1–79. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2018-200251

28.

Eyssel

Kuchenbrandt

Bobinger

de Ruiter

Hegel

(2012). “If you sound like me, you must be more human”: On the interplay of robot and user features on human-robot acceptance and anthropomorphism. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE International conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 125–126). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157717

29.

Eyssel

F. A.

Hegel

(2012). (S)he’s got the look: Gender stereotyping of robots. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), 2213–2230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00937.x

30.

Eyssel

F. A.

Kuchenbrandt

(2012). Social categorization of social robots: Anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4), 724–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02082.x

31.

Ezer

Fisk

A. D.

Rogers

W. A.

(2009). Attitudinal and intentional acceptance of domestic robots by younger and older adults. In Stephanidis

(Ed.), Universal access in human-computer interaction intelligent and ubiquitous interaction environments (Vol. 5615, pp. 39–48). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02710-9_5

32.

Fior

Nugent

Beran

Ramirez-Serrano

Kuzyk

(2010). Children’s relationships with robots: Robot is child’s new friend. Journal of Physical Agents, 4(3), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.14198/jopha.2010.4.3.02

33.

Fraune

M. R.

Sabanovic

Smith

E. R.

(2017). Teammates first: Favoring ingroup robots over outgroup humans. In 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2017.8172492

34.

Fraune

M. R.

Sabanovic

Smith

E. R.

(2020). Some are more equal than others. Interaction Studies, 21(3), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18043.fra

35.

Gasteiger

Loveys

Law

Broadbent

(2021). Friends from the future: A scoping review of research into robots and computer agents to combat loneliness in older people. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 16, 941–971. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S282709

36.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

37.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(2001). Ambivalent sexism. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115–188). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(01)80005-8

38.

González-González

C. S.

Gil-Iranzo

R. M.

Paderewski-Rodríguez

(2020). Human–robot interaction and sexbots: A systematic literature review. Sensors, 21(1), 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21010216

39.

Hanson

K. R.

(2023). A methodological reckoning for the empirical study of sex dolls and sex robot issues. Journal of Future Robot Life, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3233/frl-220009

40.

Hanson

K. R.

Locatelli

(2022). From sex dolls to sex robots and beyond: A narrative review of theoretical and empirical research on human-like and personified sex tech. Current Sexual Health Reports, 14(3), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-022-00331-0

41.

Haring

K. S.

Silvera-Tawil

Matsumoto

Velonaki

Watanabe

(2014). Perception of an android robot in Japan and Australia: A cross-cultural comparison. In Beetz

Johnston

Williams

M.-A.

(Eds.), Social robotics (pp. 166–175). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11973-1_17

42.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2012). The weirdest people in the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

43.

Hou

(2019). Sex differences in facial and vocal attractiveness among college students in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1166. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01166

44.

Kim

M. S.

Kim

E. J.

(2012). Humanoid robots as “The cultural other”: Are we able to love our creations? AI & Society, 28(3), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-012-0397-z

45.

Koverola

Drosinou

Palomäki

Halonen

Kunnari

Repo

Lehtonen

Laakasuo

(2020). Moral psychology of sex robots: An experimental study − how pathogen disgust is associated with interhuman sex but not interandroid sex. Paladyn. Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 11(1), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2020-0012

46.

Kriz

Ferro

Damera

Porter

J. R.

(2010). Fictional robots as a data source in HRI research: Exploring the link between science fiction and interactional expectations. In 19th International symposium in robot and human interactive communication. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2010.5598620

47.

Kuo

Chen

Tseng

(2017). Investigating an innovative service with hospitality robots. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(5), 1305–1321. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-08-2015-0414

48.

Levy

(2007). Love and sex with robots: The evolution of human-robot relationships. Harper.

49.

Leyzberg

Spaulding

Scassellati

(2014). Personalizing robot tutors to individuals’ learning differences. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559671

50.

Lin

Abney

Bekey

G. A.

(2011). Robot ethics: Mapping the issues for a mechanized world. Artificial Intelligence, 175(5–6), 942–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2010.11.026

51.

Locsin

R. C.

Ito

(2018). Can humanoid nurse robots replace human nurses? Journal of Nursing, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.7243/2056-9157-5-1

52.

Lohse

(2009). The role of expectations in HRI. In New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interactions (pp. 35–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

53.

Lorenčík

Tarhanicova

Sincak

(2013). Influence of sci-fi films on artificial intelligence and vice-versa. In 2013 IEEE 11th International symposium on applied machine intelligence and informatics (SAMI). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/sami.2013.6480990

54.

Louie

W. G.

McColl

Nejat

(2014). Acceptance and attitudes toward a human-like socially assistive robot by older adults. Assistive Technology: The Official Journal of RESNA, 26(3), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2013.869703

55.

Cai

Gursoy

(2019). Developing and validating a service robot integration willingness scale. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.005

56.

Mara

Appel

(2015). Science fiction reduces the eeriness of android robots: A field experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.007

57.

Marchetti-Bowick

(2009). Is your Roomba male or female? The role of gender stereotypes and cultural norms in robot design. Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology, and Society, 2(1), 1–14. https://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/view/171

58.

McArthur

Twist

M. L. C.

(2017). The rise of digisexuality: Therapeutic challenges and possibilities. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32(3–4), 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2017.1397950

59.

McColl

Nejat

(2013). Meal-time with a socially assistive robot and older adults at a long-term care facility. Journal of Human-robot Interaction, 2(1), 152–171. https://doi.org/10.5898/jhri.2.1.mccoll

60.

McNeish

(2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144

61.

Mori

(1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7, 33–35. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvtv937f.7

62.

Mori

MacDorman

K. F.

Kageki

(2012). The uncanny valley [From the Field]. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811

63.

Morsunbul

(2019). Human-robot interaction: How do personality traits affect attitudes towards robots? Journal of Human Sciences, 16(2), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v16i2.5636

64.

Nomura

Kanda

(2015). Rapport–expectation with a robot scale. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0293-z

65.

Nordmo

Næss

J. Ø.

Husøy

M. F.

Arnestad

M. N.

(2020). Friends, lovers or nothing: Men and women differ in their perceptions of sex robots and platonic love robots. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 355. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00355

66.

Oleksy

Wnuk

(2021). Do women perceive sex robots as threatening? The role of political views and presenting the robot as a female-vs male-friendly product. Computers in Human Behavior, 117, Article 106664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106664

67.

Palomäki

Kunnari

Drosinou

Koverola

Lehtonen

Halonen

Repo

Laakasuo

(2018). Evaluating the replicability of the uncanny valley effect. Heliyon, 4(11), Article e00939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00939

68.

Penke

Asendorpf

J. B.

(2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113

69.

Pettman

(2009). Love in the time of Tamagotchi. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(2–3), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409103117

70.

Pratto

Sidanius

Levin

(2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280601055772

71.

Reeves

Nass

(1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press.

72.

Richardson

(2016). The asymmetrical “relationship”: Parallels between prostitution and the development of sex robots. ACM SIGCAS - Computers and Society, 45(3), 290–293. https://doi.org/10.1145/2874239.2874281

73.

Robert

van den Bergh

(2014). Children’s openness to interacting with a robot scale (COIRS). In The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (pp. 930–935). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926372

74.

Rosseel

(2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

75.

Rothstein

N. J.

Connolly

D. H.

de Visser

E. J.

Phillips

(2021). Perceptions of infidelity with sex robots. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 129–139). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1145/3434073.3444653

76.

Royakkers

L. L.

van Est

(2015). A literature review on new robotics: Automation from love to war. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 549–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0295-x

77.

Samani

Cheok

A. D.

Ngiap

F. W.

Nagpal

Qiu

(2010). Towards a formulation of love in human - robot interaction. In 19th international symposium in robot and human interactive communication. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2010.5598716

78.

Samani

Saadatian

(2012). A multidisciplinary artificial intelligence model of an effective robot. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 9(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.5772/45662

79.

Scheutz

Arnold

T. M.

(2016). Are we ready for sex robots? In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International conference on human-robot interaction (HRI). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2016.7451772

80.

Sidanius

Kteily

Levin

Pratto

Obaidi

(2015). Support for asymmetric violence among Arab populations: The clash of cultures, social identity, or counterdominance? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(3), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215577224

81.

Siegel

Breazeal

Norton

M. I.

(2009). Persuasive Robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In 2009 IEEE/RSJ International conference on intelligent robots and systems (pp. 2563–2568). https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2009.5354116

82.

Spaulding

(2016). Affect-Aware student models for robot tutors. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/137902

83.

Sundar

S. S.

Waddell

T. F.

Jung

E. H.

(2016). The hollywood robot syndrome media effects on older adults’ attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2016.7451771

84.

Szczuka

J. M.

Hartmann

Krämer

N. C.

(2019). Negative and positive influences on the sensations evoked by artificial sex partners: A review of relevant theories, recent findings, and introduction of the sexual interaction illusion model. In Zhou

Fischer

M. H.

(Eds.), AI love you (pp. 3–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19734-6_1

85.

Szczuka

J. M.

Krämer

N. C.

(2017). Not only the lonely—how men explicitly and implicitly evaluate the attractiveness of sex robots in comparison to the attractiveness of women, and personal characteristics influencing this evaluation. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti1010003

86.

Turing

A. M.

(1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Parsing the Turing Test, 49, 23–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6710-5_3

87.

Turkle

Breazeal

Scassellati

(2006). Enouncter with kismet and cog: Children respond to relational artifacts. Digital Media: Transformations in Human Communication, 120.

88.

Van Huizen

J. C.

(2020). The Ideo-politics of paedophilia [MA Thesis]. University of Twente.

89.

Yamazaki

Ueda

Nozawa

Kojima

Okada

Matsumoto

Ishikawa

Shimoyama

Inaba

(2012). Home-assistant robot for an aging society. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(8), 2429–2441. https://doi.org/10.1109/jproc.2012.2200563

90.

Yule

M. A.

Brotto

L. A.

Gorzalka

B. B.

(2015). A validated measure of no sexual attraction: The Asexuality Identification Scale. Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038196

91.

Zhao

(2006). Humanoid social robots as a medium of communication. New Media & Society, 8(3), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806061951

92.

Zheng

(2018). Patterns of asexuality in China: Sexual activity, sexual and romantic attraction, and sexual desire. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(4), 1265–1276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1158-y

Technically in love: Individual differences relating to sexual and platonic relationships with robots

Abstract

Keywords

The present study

Methods

Participants and procedure

Measures

Sociosexual orientation

Hostile sexism index

Social dominance orientation scale

Friendship qualities scale - adapted

Robosexuality identification scale - adapted

Statistical analysis

Results

Sensitivity analysis

Correlations

Gender differences

Regression analyses

Mediation analysis

General discussion

Limitations and future directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

Author's Note

Funding

Correction (March 2024):

Ethical Statement

Open research statement

ORCID iDs

References