Using the Frith-Happé animations to compare attributions of mental qualities in nonhuman agents

References

• Abell, F., Happé, F., & Frith, U. (2000). Do triangles play tricks? Attribution of mental states to animated shapes in normal and abnormal development. Cognitive Development, 15(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00014-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akhter, E. (2015). The creation of gods: Why we anthropomorphize. Emory University Graduate Division of Biological Sciences. http://emorygdbbsnews.com/browse/2016/3/16/edyovv4lbfpqoiq5c61972lhl95×0q.
   Google Scholar
• Astington, J. W. (1998). Theory of mind, humpty dumpty, and the icebox. Human Development, 41(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1159/000022566
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, M. I., Ratajska, A., Hughes, S. L., Fishman, J. B., Huerta, E., & Chabris, C. F. (2019). The social shapes test: A new measure of social intelligence, mentalizing, and theory of mind. Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castelli, F., Happé, F., Frith, U., & Frith, C. (2000). Movement and mind: A functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns. NeuroImage, 12(3), 314–325. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0612
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin, M. G., Yordon, R. E., Clark, B. R., Ballion, T., Dolezal, M. J., Shumaker, R., & Finkelstein, N. (2005). Developing and anthropomorphic tendencies scale. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 49(13), 1266–1268. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120504901311
   Google Scholar
• Di Dio, C., Isernia, S., Ceolaro, C., Marchetti, A., & Massaro, D. (2018). Growing up thinking of god’s beliefs: Theory of mind and ontological knowledge. SAGE Open, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018809874.
   Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., & Bastian, B. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.2307/1416950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, C.-C., & MacDorman, K. F. (2010). Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: Developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1508–1518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keijsers, M., & Bartneck, C.. (2018). Mindless robots get bullied. HRI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171266
   Google Scholar
• Klein, A. M., Zwickel, J., Prinz, W., & Frith, U. (2009). Animated triangles: An eye tracking investigation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(6), 1189–1197. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802384214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klin, A. (2000). Attributing social meaning to ambiguous visual stimuli in higher-functioning autism and asperger syndrome: The social attribution task. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(7), 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00671
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozak, M. N., Marsh, A. A., & Wegner, D. M. (2006). What do I think you're doing? Action identification and mind attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.543
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livingston, L. A., Shah, P., White, S. J., & Happé, F. (2021). Further developing the Frith–Happé animations: A quicker, more objective, and web-based test of theory of mind for autistic and neurotypical adults. Autism Research, 14(9), 1905–1912. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2575
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwig, N. N., Hecht, E. E., King, T. Z., Revill, K. P., Moore, M., Fink, S. E., & Robins, D. L. (2020). A novel social attribution paradigm: The dynamic interacting shape clips (DISC). Brain and Cognition, 138, 105507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.105507
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manzi, F., Peretti, G., Di Dio, C., Cangelosi, A., Itakura, S., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Massaro, D., & Marchetti, A. (2020). A robot is not worth another: Exploring children's mental state attribution to different humanoid robots. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2011. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchetti, A., Manzi, F., Itakura, S., & Massaro, D. (2018). Theory of mind and humanoid robots from a lifespan perspective. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 226(2), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000326
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales-Bader, D., Castillo, R. D., Olivares, C., & Miño, F. (2020). How do object shape, semantic cues, and apparent velocity affect the attribution of intentionality to figures with different types of movements? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 935. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oatley, K., & Yuill, N. (1985). Perception of personal and interpersonal action in a cartoon film. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1985.tb00670.x
   Google Scholar
• Pepe, A. A., Ellis, L. U., Sims, V. K., & Chin, M. G. (2008). Go, dog, go: Maze training AIBO vs. a live dog, an exploratory study. Anthrozoös, 21(1), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279308X274074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perner, J., Leekam, S. R., & Wimmer, H. (1987). Three-year-olds’ difficulty with false belief: The case for a conceptual deficit. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1987.tb01048.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saito, T., Almaraz, S. M., & Hugenberg, K. (2022). Happy=human: A feeling of belonging modulates the “expression-to-mind” effect. Social Cognition, 40(3), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2022.40.3.213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinatra, A. M., Sims, V. K., Chin, M. G., & Lum, H. C. (2012). If it looks like a dog: The effect of physical appearance on human interaction with robots and animals. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 13(2), 235–262. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.13.2.04sin
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobel, B., & Sims, V.. (2019). Perceived applicability of a big five personality inventory for computers. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63, 1461–1465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631269.
   Google Scholar
• Sobel, B. M., & Sims, V. K.. (2020). Personality assessment as a measure of nonhuman mental capacities: A study in anthropomorphism. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 64, 1115–1119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641268.
   Google Scholar
• Testé, B. (2017). Control beliefs and dehumanization: Targets with an internal locus of control are perceived as being more human than external targets. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 76(2), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human?: The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waytz, A., & Epley, N. (2012). Social connection enables dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, S. J., Coniston, D., Rogers, R., & Frith, U. (2011). Developing the Frith-Happé animations: A quick and objective test of Theory of Mind for adults with autism. Autism Research, 4(2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwickel, J., White, S. J., Coniston, D., Senju, A., & Frith, U. (2011). Exploring the building blocks of social cognition: Spontaneous agency perception and visual perspective taking in autism. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(5), 564–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq088
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar