Robo Sapiens Bankerius: An Ideally Designed Humanoid Banking Service Robot?

Author information:

Alexandra Prisznyák https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3440-1086: AI Risk Management Expert and Consultant. E-mail: alexandra.prisznyak@gmail.com

Cite as (APA):

Prisznyák, A. (2025). Robo Sapiens Bankerius: An Ideally Designed Humanoid Banking Service Robot?. Financial and Economic Review, 24(2), 98–131. https://doi.org/10.33893/FER.24.2.98

Column:

Our Vision (Essay)

Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) codes:

O3, G21, L62

Keywords:

anthropomorphisation, humanoid banking service robots, human-robot interaction, dehumanisation

References:

Abel, M. – Buccino, G. – Binkofski, F. (2024): Perception of robotic actions and the influence of gender. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1295279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1295279

Abraham, F. – Schmukler, S. – Tessada, J. (2019): Financial Innovation and Additionality: The Power of Economic Analysis and Data Analytics. World Bank Research and Policy Briefs No. 138280. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3586630

Amelia, A. – Mathies, C. – Patterson, P.G. (2022): Customer acceptance of frontline service robots in retail banking: A qualitative approach. Journal of Service Management, 33(2): 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2020-0374

Appel, M. – Izydorczyk, D. – Weber, S. – Mara, M. – Lischetzke, T. (2020): The uncanny of mind in a machine: Humanoid robots as tools, agents, and experiencers. Computers in Human Behavior, 102: 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.031

Araujo, T. (2018): Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 85: 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.051

Arora, A.S. – Arora, A. – Sivakumar, K. – Taras, V. (2024): The role of anthropomorphic, xenocentric, intentional, and social (AXIS) robotics in human-robot interaction. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1), 100036. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100036

Asprino, L. – Ciancarini, P. – Nuzzolese, A.G. – Presutti, V. – Russo, A. (2022): A reference architecture for social robots. Journal of Web Semantics, 72, 100683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2021.100683

Baraka, K. – Alves-Oliveira, P. – Ribeiro, T. (2020): An Extended Framework for Characterizing Social Robots. In: Jost, C. – Le Pévédic, B. – Belpaeme, T. – Bethel, C. – Chrysostomou, D. – Crook, N. – Grandgeorge, M. – Mirnig, M. (eds.): Human-Robot Interaction. Springer Series on Bio- and Neurosystems, Vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42307-0_2

Bartneck, C. – Kanda, T. – Ishiguro, H. – Hagita, N. (2009a): My robotic doppelgänger – A critical look at the Uncanny Valley. ROMAN 2009 – The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Toyama, Japan, 2009, pp. 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2009.5326351

Bartneck, C. – Kanda, T. – Mubin, O. – Mahmud, A.A. (2009b): Does the design of a robot influence its animacy and perceived intelligence?. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1: 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0013-7

Beer, J.M. – Fisk, A.D. – Rogers, W.A. (2014): Toward a Framework for Levels of Robot Autonomy in Human-Robot Interaction. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 3(2): 74–99. https://doi.org/10.5898/jhri.3.2.beer

Biocca, F. – Harms, C. – Burgoon, J.K. (2003): Toward a More Robust Theory and Measure of Social Presence: Review and Suggested Criteria. Presence, 12(5): 456–480.https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270

Blut, M. – Wang, C. – Wünderlich, N.V. – Brock, C. (2021): Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: a meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49: 632–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y

Breazeal, C. (2003): Toward sociable robots. Robotics and autonomous systems, 42(3–4): 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8890(02)00373-1

Breazeal, C. – Harris, P.L. – DeSteno, D. – Westlund, J.M.K. – Dickens, L. – Jeong, S. (2016): Young Children Treat Robots as Informants. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8: 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12192

Brengman, M. – De Gauquier, L. – Willems, K. – Vanderborght, B. (2021): From stopping to shopping: An observational study comparing a humanoid service robot with a tablet service kiosk to attract and convert shoppers. Journal of Business Research, 134: 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.025

Broadbent, E. – Kumar, V. – Li, X. – Sollers, J. – Stafford, R.Q. – MacDonald, B.A. – Wegner, D.M. (2013): Robots with display screens: A robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PloS One, 8(8), e72589. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072589

Burleigh, T.J. – Schoenherr, J.R. – Lacroix, G.L. (2013): Does the uncanny valley exist? An empirical test of the relationship between eeriness and the human likeness of digitally created faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3): 759–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.021

Cameron, D. – Collins, E.C. – de Saille, S. – Eimontaite, I. – Greenwood, A. – Law, J. (2023): The Social Triad Model: Considering the Deployer in a Novel Approach to Trust in Human–Robot Interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 16: 1405–1418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01048-3

Cameron, D. – de Saille, S. – Collins, E.C. – Aitken, J.M. – Cheung, H. – Chua, A. – Loh, E.J. – Law, J. (2021): The effect of social-cognitive recovery strategies on likability, capability and trust in social robots. Computers in Human Behavior. Volume 114, 106561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106561

Caporael, L. – Heyes, C.M. (1997): Why Anthropomorphize? Folk Psychology and Other Stories. In: Mitchell, R.W. – Thompson, N.S. – Miles, H.L. (eds.): Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals. SUNY Press, pp. 59–73. https://philpapers.org/rec/CAPWAF-2

Castro-González, Á. – Admoni, H. – Scassellati, B. (2016): Effects of form and motion on judgments of social robots׳ animacy, likability, trustworthiness and unpleasantness. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 90: 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.02.004

Chang, W. – Kim, K.K. (2022): Appropriate service robots in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Business Research, 141: 462–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.044

Choi, S. – Mattila, A.S. – Bolton, L.E. (2021): To Err Is Human(-oid): How Do Consumers React to Robot Service Failure and Recovery?. Journal of Service Research, 24(3): 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520978798

Chuah, S.H.-W. – Yu, J. (2021): The future of service: The power of emotion in human-robot interaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, 102551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102551

Coeckelbergh, M. (2022): Three responses to anthropomorphism in social robotics: Towards a critical, relational, and hermeneutic approach. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14: 2049–2061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00770-0

Cornelius, S. – Leidner, D. (2021): Acceptance of Anthropomorphic Technology: A Literature Review. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2021, pp. 6422–6431. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2021.774

Dacey, M. (2017): Anthropomorphism as Cognitive Bias. Philosophy of Science, 84(5): 1152–1164. https://doi.org/10.1086/694039

Damiano, L. – Dumouchel, P. (2018): Anthropomorphism in Human-Robot Co-evolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 468. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00468

De Graaf, M.M. – Allouch, S.B. (2013): Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61(12): 1476–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007

Deng, E. – Mutlu, B. – Mataric, M. (2019): Embodiment in Socially Interactive Robots. Foundations and Trends in Robotics, 7(4): 251–356. https://doi.org/10.1561/2300000056

Dennett, D.C. (1971): Intentional systems. Journal of Philosophy, 68(4): 87–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025382

Diener, F. – Špaček, M. (2021): Digital Transformation in Banking: A Managerial Perspective on Barriers to Change. Sustainability, 13, 2032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042032

Duffy B.R. (2003): Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4): 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8890(02)00374-3

Epley, N. – Waytz, A. – Cacioppo, J.T. (2007): On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4): 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864

Eyssel, F. – Hegel, F. (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

Ferrari, F. – Paladino, M.P. – Jetten, J. (2016): Blurring human–machine distinctions: Anthropomorphic appearance in social robots as a threat to human distinctiveness. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8: 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0338-y

Fink, J. (2012): Anthropomorphism and Human Likeness in the Design of Robots and Human-Robot Interaction. In: Ge, S.S. – Khatib, O. – Cabibihan, J.-J. – Simmons, R. – Williams, M.-A. (eds.): Social Robotics. ICSR 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7621. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_20

Fischer, K. (2021): Tracking Anthropomorphizing Behavior in Human-Robot Interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 11(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442677

Fisher, J.A. (1991): Disambiguating anthropomorphism: An interdisciplinary review. Perspectives in Ethology, 9: 49–85.

Fong, T. – Nourbakhsh, I. – Dautenhahn, K. (2003): A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4): 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X

Fox, J. – Gambino, A. (2021): Relationship Development with Humanoid Social Robots: Applying Interpersonal Theories to Human-Robot Interaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(5): 294–299. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0181

Galanxhi, H. – Nah, F.F.-H. (2007): Deception in cyberspace: A comparison of text-only vs. avatar-supported medium. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(9): 770–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.04.005

Gambino, A. – Fox, J. – Ratan, R. (2020): Building a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm. Human-Machine Communication, 1: 71–86. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.5

Gültekin, M. (2022): Human-social robot interaction, anthropomorphism and ontological boundary problem in education. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 11(3): 751–773. https://doi.org/10.52963/perr_biruni_v11.n3.11

Haslam, N. (2022): Dehumanization and the lack of social connection. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43: 312–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.013

Heerink, M. (2011): Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '11), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 147–148. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957704

Heerink, M. – Kröse, B. – Evers, V. – Wielinga, B. (2008): The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. Journal of Physical Agents, 2(2): 33–40. https://doi.org/10.14198/jopha.2008.2.2.05

IFR (2016): World Robotics Report 2016: European Union occupies top position in the global automation race. International Federation of Robotics. https://ifr-org.webpkgcache.com/doc/-/s/ifr.org/img/uploads/2016-09-29_Press_Release_IFR_World_Robotics_Report_2016_ENGLISH.pdf. Downloaded: 20 August 2024.

IFR (2024): Absatz von Service-Robotern steigt weltweit um 30 Prozent. International Federation of Robotics. https://ifr.org/downloads/press2018/DE-2024-Oktober-07-IFR_Pressemeldung_SERVICE_ROBOTERpdf.pdf. Downloaded: 10 December 2024.

ISO (2021): Robotics – Vocabulary. International Organization for Standardization. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:8373:ed-3:v1:en. Downloaded: 10 August 2024.

ISO (2023): Robotics. Application services provided by service robots – Safety management systems requirements. International Organization for Standardization. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/es/#iso:std:iso:31101:ed-1:v1:en:term:3.1. Downloaded: 10 July 2024.

Ivanov, S. (2017): Robonomics – Principles, Benefits, Challenges, Solutions. In: Yearbook of Varna University of Management, Vol. 10, pp. 283–293.

Jovanović, S.Z. – Đurić, J.S. – Šibalija, T.V. (2019): Robotic Process Automation: Overview and Opportunities. International Journal “Advanced Quality”, 46(3–4): 34–39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332970286_ROBOTIC_PROCESS_AUTOMATION_OVERVIEW_AND_OPPORTUNITIES

Jung, D. – Dorner, V. – Glaser, F. – Morana, S. (2018):Robo-Advisory: Digitalization and Automation of Financial Advisory. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 60: 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0521-9

Kahn, P.H. – Ishiguro, H. – Friedman, B. – Kanda, T. (2006): What is a human? – Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human-robot interaction. ROMAN 2006 – The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Hatfield, UK, 2006, pp. 364–371. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2006.314461

Kamide, H. – Kawabe, K. – Shigemi, S. – Arai, T. (2013): Development of a psychological scale for general impressions of humanoid. Advanced Robotics, 27(1): 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2013.751159

Kim, Y. – Lee, H.S. (2014): Quality, Perceived Usefulness, User Satisfaction, and Intention to Use: An Empirical Study of Ubiquitous Personal Robot Service. Asian Social Science, 10(11): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n11p1

Lee, K.M. (2004): Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1): 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/14.1.27

Lee, K.M. – Peng, W. – Jin, S.-A. – Yan, C. (2006): Can Robots Manifest Personality?: An Empirical Test of Personality Recognition, Social Responses, and Social Presence in Human–Robot Interaction. Journal of Communication, 56: 754–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00318.x

Lee, W.-H. – Lin, C.-W. – Shih, K.-H. (2018): A technology acceptance model for the perception of restaurant service robots for trust, interactivity, and output quality. International Journal of Mobile Communications. 16(4): 361–376. https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2018.092666

Lu, L. – Zhang, P. – Zhang, T. (2021): Leveraging “human-likeness” of robotic service at restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102823

Malle, B.F. – Scheutz, M. – Forlizzi, J. – Voiklis, J. (2016): Which robot am I thinking about?: The impact of action and appearance on people’s evaluations of a moral robot. 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451743

Mara, M. – Appel, M. (2015): Effects of lateral head tilt on user perceptions of humanoid and android robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 44: 326–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.025

McLannahan, B. (2017): Bank of America aims to reinvent the bricks and mortar branch. Financial Times, 3 April. https://www.ft.com/content/2abd7dca-17c0-11e7-a53d-df09f373be87. Downloaded: 30 October 2023.

Mori, M. (1970): Bukimi no tani (The uncanny valley). Energy, 7(4): 33–35.

Murphy, J. – Gretzel, U. – Pesonen, J. (2019): Marketing robot services in hospitality and tourism: the role of anthropomorphism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(7): 784–795. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1571983

Nass, C. – Moon, Y. (2000): Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1): 81–103.https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153

Nass, C. – Steuer, J. – Tauber, E.R. (1994): Computers are social actors. In: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '94). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 204. https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260288

Nomura, T. – Suzuki, T. – Kanda, T. – Kato, K. (2006): Measurement of anxiety toward robots. ROMAN 2006 – The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Hatfield, UK, 2006, pp. 372–377. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314462

Nussey, S. (2021): Exclusive SoftBank shrinks robotics business, stops Pepper production – sources. Reuters, 29 June. https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-softbank-shrinks-robotics-business-stops-pepper-production-sources-2021-06-28/. Downloaded: 10 March 2024.

Phillips, E. – Ososky, S. – Grove, J. – Jentsch, F. (2011): From tools to teammates: Toward the development of appropriate mental models for intelligent robots. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55(1), pp. 1491–1495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181311551310

Phillips, E. – Zhao, X. – Ullman, D. – Malle, B.F. (2018): What is Human-like?: Decomposing Robots’ Human-like Appearance Using the Anthropomorphic roBOT (ABOT) Database. HRI ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 105–113.https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171268

Piwek, L. – McKay, L.S. – Pollick, F.E. (2014): Empirical evaluation of the uncanny valley hypothesis fails to confirm the predicted effect of motion. Cognition, 130(3): 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.001

Powers, A. – Kiesler, S. (2006): The advisor robot: Tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In: HRI '06: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction, pp. 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1145/1121241.1121280

Prisznyák, A. (2022): Artificial Intelligence in the Banking Sector. Economy and Finance, 9(4): 333–340. https://doi.org/10.33908/EF.2022.4.4

Prisznyák, A. (2023): Horizontal and Vertical Value Creation in Bankrobotics and the AI-Washing Phenomenon. Financial and Economic Review, 22(3): 97–122. https://doi.org/10.33893/FER.22.3.97

Prisznyák, A. (2025): The robot-labelling phenomenon: Robot-Ready Modern Operational Risk Management. Journal of Operational Risk, 20(1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.21314/jop.2024.014

Reeves, B. – Nass, C. (1996): The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Rese, A. – Witthohn, L. (2025): Recovering customer satisfaction after a chatbot service failure – The effect of gender. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 84, 104257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2025.104257

Richert, A. – Müller, S. – Schröder, S. – Jeschke, S. (2018): Anthropomorphism in social robotics: empirical results on human–robot interaction in hybrid production workplaces. AI & Society, 33: 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0756-x

Robertson, J. (2017): Robo sapiens japanicus: Robots, Gender, Family, and the Japanese Nation. University of California Press, Oakland, California. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780520959064

Roxburgh, H. (2018): Inside Shanghai's robot bank: China opens world's first human-free branch. The Guardian, 14 May. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/may/14/shanghai-robot-bank-china-worlds-first-human-free-branch-construction. Downloaded: 25 October 2023.

Ruijten, P.A. – Haans, A. – Ham, J. – Midden, C.J.H. (2019): Perceived Human-Likeness of Social Robots: Testing the Rasch Model as a Method for Measuring Anthropomorphism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11: 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00516-z

Sah, Y.J. – Peng, W. (2015): Effects of visual and linguistic anthropomorphic cues on social perception, self-awareness, and information disclosure in a health website. Computers in Human Behavior, 45: 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.055

Sarrica, M. – Brondi, S. – Fortunati, L. (2019): How many facets does a “social robot” have? A review of scientific and popular definitions online. Information Technology & People, 33(1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-04-2018-0203

Song, C.S. – Kim, Y.-K. (2022): The role of the human-robot interaction in consumers’ acceptance of humanoid retail service robots. Journal of Business Research, 146: 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.087

Spatola, N. – Marchesi, S. – Wykowska, A. (2022): Different models of anthropomorphism across cultures and ontological limits in current frameworks the integrative framework of anthropomorphism. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9: 863319. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.863319

Spatola, N. – Marchesi, S. – Wykowska, A. (2023): The Phenotypes of Anthropomorphism and the Link to Personality Traits. International Journal of Social Robotics, 15: 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00939-1

Stein, J.-P. – Ohler, P. (2017): Venturing into the uncanny valley of mind – The influence of mind attribution on the acceptance of human-like characters in a virtual reality setting. Cognition, 160: 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.010

Stock, R.M. – Merkle, M. (2017): A Service Robot Acceptance Model: User acceptance of humanoid robots during service encounters. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops), Kona, HI, USA, pp. 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOMW.2017.7917585

Sugiyama, S. – Vincent, J. (2013): Social robots and emotion: transcending the boundary between humans and ICTs. intervalla: platform for intellectual exchange, 1: 1–6. https://www.fus.edu/intervalla/volume-1-social-robots-and-emotion-transcending-the-boundary-between-humans-and-icts/social-robots-and-emotion-transcending-the-boundary-between-humans-and-icts

Tian, L. – Oviatt, S. (2021): A taxonomy of social errors in human-robot interaction. ACM Transactions of Human-Robot Interaction, 10(2), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3439720

Tuomi, A. – Tussyadiah, I.P. – Hanna, P. (2021): Spicing up hospitality service encounters: The case of Pepper™. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(11): 3906–3925. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0739

Urquiza-Haas, E.G. – Kotrschal, K. (2015): The mind behind anthropomorphic thinking: Attribution of mental states to other species. Animal Behaviour, 109, 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.08.011

van Pinxteren, M.M.E. – Wetzels, R.W.H. – Rüger, J. – Pluymaekers, M. – Wetzels, M. (2019): Trust in humanoid robots: implications for services marketing. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(4): 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-01-2018-0045

van Straten, C.L. – Jochen, P. – Kühne, R. (2023): Transparent robots: How children perceive and relate to a social robot that acknowledges its lack of human psychological capacities and machine status. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 177, 103063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103063

Wiese, E. – Metta, G. – Wykowska, A. (2017): Robots As Intentional Agents: Using Neuroscientific Methods to Make Robots Appear More Social. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1663. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663

Wykowska, A. – Chaminade, T. – Cheng, G. (2016): Embodied artificial agents for understanding human social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 371, 20150375. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0375

Złotowski, J. – Proudfoot, D. – Yogeeswaran, K. – Bartneck, C. (2015a): Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human–Robot Interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7: 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6

Złotowski, J.A. – Sumioka, H. – Nishio, S. – Glas, D.F. – Bartneck, C. – Ishiguro, H. (2015b): Persistence of the uncanny valley: the influence of repeated interactions and a robot’s attitude on its perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 883. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00883