Age differences of preference for humanoid AI speakers

얼굴형 인공지능 스피커에 대한 선호의 나이 효과

  • Oh, Songjoo (Department of Psychology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Hwang, Jihyun (Department of Psychology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yew, Jiho (Department of Psychology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Hahn, Sowon (Department of Psychology, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2018.02.06
  • Accepted : 2018.03.12
  • Published : 2018.03.30


In this study, we investigated age differences of preference and trust ratings when the appearance of an artificial intelligent speaker resembles a human face. The appearance of the artificial intelligent speaker was presented in seven levels from robot face to human face. In addition, face stimuli were divided into gender (male and female) and age (20s / 60s). Participants evaluated the reliability and likability of each face stimulus on a 7-point scale. The results show that younger adults tend to prefer the face that was halfway between the robot and the human face, while older adults evaluated that the perceived reliability and likability were higher when the stimuli resembled the human face. When asked to choose the most preferred of the four face categories, all participants chose a younger face. However, with additional conditions including emoticon face and empty condition, older adults still preferred human face, while younger adults preferred emoticon face and empty condition. Taken together, older adults are more receptive to human faces than robotic faces in the context of artificial intelligence speakers. Because artificial intelligent speakers can play an important role in the elderly living alone, the present study will be a good reference in the design and development of artificial intelligent speakers for the elderly users.


Supported by : 서울대학교


  1. Frennert, S., & Ostlund, B. (2014). Review: seven matters of concern of social robots and older people. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(2), 299-310.
  2. Coeckelbergh, M. (2011). You, robot: on the linguistic construction of artificial others. AI & society, 26(1), 61-69.
  3. Robertson, J. (2010). Gendering humanoid robots: robo-sexism in Japan. Body & Society, 16(2), 1-36.
  4. Shaw-Garlock, G. (2009). Looking forward to sociable robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(3), 249-260.
  5. Zhao, S. (2006). Humanoid social robots as a medium of communication. New Media & Society, 8(3), 401-419.
  6. Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., & Powers, A. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. Paper presented at the Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003. The 12th IEEE International Workshop on.
  7. Li, D., Rau, P. P., & Li, Y. (2010). A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(2), 175-186.
  8. Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S. N., Walters, M. L., & Koay, K. L. (2007). Looking Good? Appearance Preferences and Robot Personality Inferences at Zero Acquaintance. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium: Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive Robotics.
  9. Broadbent, E., Kumar, V., Li, X., Sollers 3rd, 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.
  10. Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boerkhorst, R., & Billard, A. (2004, September). Robots as assistive technology-does appearance matter? In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2004. ROMAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 277-282). IEEE.
  11. Eyssel, F., Kuchenbrandt, D., Hegel, F., & de Ruiter, L. (2012). Activating elicited agent knowledge: How robot and user features shape the perception of social robots. Paper presented at the RO-MAN, 2012 IEEE.
  12. Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi no tani. Energy, 7(4), 33-35.
  13. Prakash, A., & Rogers, W. A. (2013). Younger and older adults' attitudes toward robot faces effects of task and humanoid appearance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting.
  14. Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(32), 11087-11092.
  15. Mathur, M. B., & Reichling, D. B. (2016). Navigating a social world with robot partners: A quantitative cartography of the Uncanny Valley. Cognition, 146, 22-32.
  16. Noguchi, K., Gel, Y. R., Brunner, E., & Konietschke, F. (2012). nparLD: an R software package for the nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments.
  17. Ebner, N. C., Gluth, S., Johnson, M. R., Raye, C. L., Mitchell, K. J., & Johnson, M. K. (2011). Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activity When Thinking About Others Depends on Their Age. Neurocase, 17(3), 260-269. doi:10.1080/13554794.2010.536953
  18. Ebner, N. C., He, Y., & Johnson, M. K. (2011). Age and Emotion Affect How We Look at a Face: Visual Scan Patterns Differ for Own-Age versus Other-Age Emotional Faces. Cognition & Emotion, 25(6), 983-997. doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.540817
  19. Cross, J. F., & Cross, J. (1971). Age, sex, race, and the perception of facial beauty. Developmental Psychology, 5(3), 433.
  20. Palumbo, R., Adams Jr, R. B., Hess, U., Kleck, R. E., & Zebrowitz, L. (2017). Age and Gender Differences in Facial Attractiveness, but Not Emotion Resemblance, Contribute to Age and Gender Stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1704.
  21. Minato, T., Shimada, M., Ishiguro, H., & Itakura, S. (2004). Development of an android robot for studying human-robot interaction. Innovations in applied artificial intelligence, 424-434.
  22. Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., & MacDonald, B. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. International journal of social robotics, 1(4), 319-330.
  23. Powers, K. E., Worsham, A. L., Freeman, J. B., Wheatley, T., & Heatherton, T. F. (2014). Social Connection Modulates Perceptions of Animacy. Psychological science, 25(10), 1943-1948.