Perceived Robot Threats Reduce Pro-Social Tendencies

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0671

Abstract

Abstract:

The entry of robots into society may pose a psychological threat to human beings, and such a threat can bring challenges to interpersonal relationships. Through eight studies, combining archival database backtracking, questionnaires, contextual experiments, and offline surveys, the article explores the effects of perceived robot threat on pro-social tendencies, as well as its underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions. The results found that: perceived robot threat reduces people's pro-social tendency (Study 1~7); the mechanism is mediated by collective anxiety, i.e., perceived robot threat increases collective anxiety, which reduces pro-social tendency (Study 2~ 4); this effect is moderated by in-group and out-group, i.e., perceived robot threat reduces pro-social tendency for out-group members (Study 5); at the same time, the effect is moderated by moral comparison tendency, i.e., perceived robot threat reduces pro-social tendency for out-group members (Study 6); at the same time, this effect is moderated by This effect is moderated by the moral comparison tendency, i.e., perceived robot threat mainly reduces the pro-social tendency of downward moral comparators (Study 6). The findings reveal the negative impact of perceived robot threat on interpersonal relationships and extend existing research on the social impact of robots.

Key words: pro-social tendencies, perceived robot threat, collective anxiety, outgroups, moral comparisons

XU Liying, ZHANG Yuyan, YU Feng. (2025). Perceived Robot Threats Reduce Pro-Social Tendencies. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(4), 671-699.

Figures/Tables 13

References 103

[1]	Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.586 pmid: 11129362
[2]	Agarwat, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665-694.
[3]	Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. (2019). The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
[4]	Andrighetto, L., Vezzali, L., Bergamini, G., Nadi, C., & Giovannini, D. (2016). Inside the earthquake: Perceived disaster exposure and helping intentions among Italian and immigrant victims of the 2012 Italian earthquakes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 19(6), 753-768.
[5]	Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612.
[6]	Asimov, I. (1950). I, Robot. New York: Gnome Press.
[7]	Bai, M., Zhang, H., Zhang, J., Jiang, Y., & Xu, J. (in press). Challenging or threatening? The double-edged sword effect of intelligent technology awareness on accountants’ unethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics.
[8]	Barnes, C. M., Dang, C. T., Leavitt, K., Guarana, C. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2018). Archival data in micro- organizational research: A toolkit for moving to a broader set of topics. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1453-1478.
[9]	Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 463-484). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
[10]	Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M.,... Willer, R. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460-471. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z pmid: 32355299
[11]	Bobo, L. (1983). Whites' opposition to busing: Symbolic racism or realistic group conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(6), 1196-1210.
[12]	Bordot, F. (2022). Artificial intelligence, robots and unemployment: Evidence from OECD countries. Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, 37(1), 117-138.
[13]	Bostrom, N. (2002). Existential risks: Analyzing human extinction scenarios and related hazards. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 9, 1-30.
[14]	Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429-444.
[15]	Brewer, M. B. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political psychology. Political Psychology, 22(1), 115-125.
[16]	Butz, D. A., & Yogeeswaran, K. (2011). A new threat in the air: Macroeconomic threat increases prejudice against Asian Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 22-27.
[17]	Carradore, M. (2022). People’s attitudes towards the use of robots in the social services: A multilevel analysis using eurobarometer data. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14, 845-858.
[18]	Cortland, C. I., Craig, M. A., Shapiro, J. R., Richeson, J. A., Neel, R., & Goldstein, N. J. (2017). Solidarity through shared disadvantage: Highlighting shared experiences of discrimination improves relations between stigmatized groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 547-567. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000100 pmid: 28581301
[19]	Diel, K., Grelle, S., & Hofmann, W. (2021). A motivational framework of social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1415-1430. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000204 pmid: 33507785
[20]	Diel, K., & Hofmann, W. (2019). Inspired to perspire: The interplay of social comparison direction and standard extremity in the context of challenging exercising goals. Social Cognition, 37(3), 247-265
[21]	Dovidio, J. F., ten Vergert, M., Stewart, T. L., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, J. D., Esses, V. M., Riek, B. M., & Pearson, A. R. (2004). Perspective and prejudice: Antecedents and mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1537-1549. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271177 pmid: 15536238
[22]	Drury, J. (2018). The role of social identity processes in mass emergency behaviour: An integrative review. European Review of Social Psychology, 29(1), 38-81.
[23]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 pmid: 17695343
[24]	Fleischmann, A., Lammers, J., Diel, K., Hofmann, W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2021). More threatening and more diagnostic: How moral comparisons differ from social comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(5), 1057-1078. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000361 pmid: 33646800
[25]	Fleming, D. A., Chong, A., & Bejarano, H. D. (2014). Trust and reciprocity in the aftermath of natural disasters. The Journal of Development Studies, 50(11), 1482-1493.
[26]	Ford, M. R. (2009). The lights in the tunnel: Automation, accelerating technology and the economy of the future. Wayne, PA: Acculant Publishing.
[27]	Frankenberg, E., Nobles, J., & Sumantri, C. (2012). Community destruction and traumatic stress in post- tsunami Indonesia. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 53(4), 498-514. doi: 10.1177/0022146512456207 pmid: 22940603
[28]	Frey, C. B., Berger, T., & Chen, C. (2018). Political machinery: Did robots swing the 2016 US presidential election? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34(3), 418-442.
[29]	Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254-280.
[30]	Fuesting, M. A., Diekman, A. B., Boucher, K. L., Murphy, M. C., Manson, D. L., & Safer, B. L. (2019). Growing STEM: Perceived faculty mindset as an indicator of communal affordances in STEM. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 260-281. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000154 pmid: 30869983
[31]	Fulford, D., Johnson, S. L., Llabre, M. M., & Carver, C. S. (2010). Pushing and coasting in dynamic goal pursuit: Coasting is attenuated in bipolar disorder. Psychological Science, 21(7), 1021-1027. doi: 10.1177/0956797610373372 pmid: 20519486
[32]	Gaesser, B., Shimura, Y., & Cikara, M. (2020). Episodic simulation reduces intergroup bias in prosocial intentions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 683-705. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000194 pmid: 31157527
[33]	Gamez-Djokic, M., & Waytz, A. (2020). Concerns about automation and negative sentiment toward immigration. Psychological Science, 31(8), 987-1000. doi: 10.1177/0956797620929977 pmid: 32697627
[34]	Gordils, J., Elliot, A. J., Toprakkiran, S., & Jamieson, J. P. (2021). The effects of COVID-19 on perceived intergroup competition and negative intergroup outcomes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 161(4), 419-434.
[35]	Goyal, A., & Aneja, R. (2020). Artificial intelligence and income inequality: Do technological changes and worker's position matter?. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(4), e2326.
[36]	Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619.
[37]	Gray, K., Yam, K. C., Zhen’An, A. E., Wilbanks, D., & Waytz, A. (2023). The psychology of robots and artificial intelligence. In D. Gilbert et al (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1-83). Situational Press.
[38]	Harari, Y. N. (2017). Reboot for the AI revolution. Nature, 550(7676), 324-327.
[39]	Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
[40]	Hirschberger, G., & Pyszczynski, T. (2011). Killing with a clean conscience:Existential angst and the paradox of morality. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 331-347). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
[41]	Howard, A., & Borenstein, J. (2018). The ugly truth about ourselves and our robot creations: The problem of bias and social inequity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1521-1536. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9975-2 pmid: 28936795
[42]	Huang, H. L., Cheng, L. K., Sun, P. C., & Chou, S. J. (2021). The effects of perceived identity threat and realistic threat on the negative attitudes and usage intentions toward hotel service robots: The moderating effect of the robot’s anthropomorphism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 1599-1611.
[43]	Im, Z. J., Mayer, N., Palier, B., & Rovny, J. (2019). The “losers of automation”: A reservoir of votes for the radical right? Research & Politics, 6(1), 1-7.
[44]	Jackson, J. C., Castelo, N., & Gray, K. (2020). Could a rising robot workforce make humans less prejudiced? American Psychologist, 75(7), 969-982.
[45]	Jackson, J. W. (1993). Realistic group conflict theory: A review and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature. Psychological Record, 43(3), 395-413.
[46]	Jetten, J., Mols, F., Healy, N., & Spears, R. (2017). “Fear of falling”: Economic instability enhances collective angst among societies’ wealthy class. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 61-79.
[47]	Jetten, J., Mols, F., & Steffens, N. K. (2021). Prosperous but fearful of falling: The wealth paradox, collective angst, and opposition to immigration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(5), 766-780.
[48]	Jetten, J., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2012). The past as a determinant of the present: Historical continuity, collective angst, and opposition to immigration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4), 442-450.
[49]	Kahn, B. (2023). Elon Musk and Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak among over 1, 100 who sign open letter calling for 6-month ban on creating powerful A.I. Retrieved August 17, 2024,
[50]	Kahn, D. T., Björklund, F., & Hirschberger, G. (2022). The intent and extent of collective threats: A data-driven conceptualization of collective threats and their relation to political preferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(5), 1178-1198.
[51]	Khasawneh, O. Y. (2018). Technophobia: Examining its hidden factors and defining it. Technology in Society, 54, 93-100.
[52]	Kung, F. Y., Chao, M. M., Yao, D. J., Adair, W. L., Fu, J. H., & Tasa, K. (2018). Bridging racial divides: Social constructionist (vs. essentialist) beliefs facilitate trust in intergroup contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 121-134.
[53]	Lalonde, R. N. (2002). Testing the social identity-intergroup differentiation hypothesis: We’re not American eh! British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 611-630.
[54]	Lasarov, W., & Hoffmann, S. (2020). Social moral licensing. Journal of Business Ethics, 165, 45-66.
[55]	Leo, X., & Huh, Y. E. (2020). Who gets the blame for service failures? Attribution of responsibility toward robot versus human service providers and service firms. Computers in Human Behavior, 113, 106520.
[56]	Li, J. J., Bonn, M. A., & Ye, B. H. (2019). Hotel employee's artificial intelligence and robotics awareness and its impact on turnover intention: The moderating roles of perceived organizational support and competitive psychological climate. Tourism Management, 73, 172-181.
[57]	Li, J., & Huang, J. S. (2020). Dimensions of artificial intelligence anxiety based on the integrated fear acquisition theory. Technology in Society, 63, 101410.
[58]	Lin, J., Panganiban, A. R., Matthews, G., Gibbins, K., Ankeney, E., See, C.,... Long, M. (2022). Trust in the danger zone: Individual differences in confidence in robot threat assessments. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 601523.
[59]	Lucas, T., Rudolph, C., Zhdanova, L., Barkho, E., & Weidner, N. (2014). Distributive justice for others, collective angst, and support for exclusion of immigrants. Political Psychology, 35(6), 775-793.
[60]	Mann, F. D., Krueger, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2020). Personal economic anxiety in response to COVID-19. Personality and Individual Differences, 167, 110233.
[61]	Mathias, P. (2013). The first industrial nation: The economic history of Britain 1700-1914. London: Routledge.
[62]	McClure, P. K. (2018). “You’re fired,” says the robot: The rise of automation in the workplace, technophobes, and fears of unemployment. Social Science Computer Review, 36(2), 139-156.
[63]	McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830-853. doi: 10.1037/a0028724 pmid: 22708625
[64]	Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344-357.
[65]	Miao, X., Liu, L., Dang, J., Wei, C., Huang, L., & Liu, Z. (2023). Unity or estrangement under crises? Perceived resource scarcity moderates the effect of a common threat on intergroup cooperation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 15(5), 659-669.
[66]	Miloyan, B., Bienvenu, O. J., Brilot, B., & Eaton, W. W. (2018). Adverse life events and the onset of anxiety disorders. Psychiatry Research, 259, 488-492. doi: S0165-1781(17)30520-6 pmid: 29154170
[67]	Neufeind, M., O’Reilly, J., & Ranft, F. (2018). Work in the digital age: Challenges of the fourth industrial revolution. London: Rowman and Littlefield.
[68]	Osgood, J. M., & Muraven, M. (2015). Self-control depletion does not diminish attitudes about being prosocial but does diminish prosocial behaviors. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(1), 68-80.
[69]	Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E., & Wong, N. Y. C. (1997). Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions. Psychological Methods, 2(4), 329-344.
[70]	Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392. pmid: 15709940
[71]	Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336-353. pmid: 17201592
[72]	Roccas, S., & Amit, A. (2011). Group heterogeneity and tolerance: The moderating role of conservation values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 898-907.
[73]	Römpke, A. K., Fritsche, I., & Reese, G. (2019). Get together, feel together, act together: International personal contact increases identification with humanity and global collective action. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3(1), 35-48.
[74]	Rughiniş, C., Zamﬁrescu, R., Neagoe, A., & Rughiniş, R. (2018, April). Visions of robots, networks and artiﬁcial intelligence: Europeans’ attitudes towards digitisation and automation in daily life. In The international scientiﬁc conference eLearning and software for education (Vol. 2, pp. 114-119), Bucharest, Romania.
[75]	Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
[76]	Shoss, M. K., & Ciarlante, K. (2022). Are robots/AI viewed as more of a workforce threat in unequal societies? Evidence from the eurobarometer survey. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 3(2), 1-13.
[77]	Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression:A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183-219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
[78]	Simpson, B., & Willer, R. (2015). Beyond altruism: Sociological foundations of cooperation and prosocial behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 43-63.
[79]	Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 845-851. pmid: 16393019
[80]	Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice (pp. 43-59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[81]	Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study of mores, manners, customs and morals. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
[82]	Susskind, R. E., & Susskind, D. (2015). The future of the professions: How technology will transform the work of human experts. New York: Oxford University Press.
[83]	Tabri, N., Wohl, M. J. A., & Caouette, J. (2018). Will we be harmed, will it be severe, can we protect ourselves? Threat appraisals predict collective angst (and its consequences). European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 72-85.
[84]	Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
[85]	Touré-Tillery, M., & Light, A. E. (2018). No self to spare: How the cognitive structure of the self influences moral behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 147, 48-64.
[86]	Uenal, F., Sidanius, J., Roozenbeek, J., & Linden, S. (2021). Climate change threats increase modern racism as a function of social dominance orientation and ingroup identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, 104228.
[87]	Vezzali, L., Andrighetto, L., Drury, J., Di Bernardo, G. A., & Cadamuro, A. (2017). In the aftermath of natural disasters:Fostering helping towards outgroup victims. In H. Zagefka & E. Van Leeuwen (Eds.), Intergroup helping: The positive side of intergroup behaviour (pp. 305-330). New York, NY: Springer.
[88]	Vu, H. T., & Lim, J. (2021). Effects of country and individual factors on public acceptance of artiﬁcial intelligence and robotics technologies: A multilevel SEM analysis of 28-country survey data. Behaviour and Information Technology, 41(7), 1515-1528.
[89]	Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2008). Collective angst:How threats to the future vitality of the ingroup shape intergroup emotion. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 171-181). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
[90]	Wohl, M. J. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Reysen, S. (2010). Perceiving your group’s future to be in jeopardy: Extinction threat induces collective angst and the desire to strengthen the ingroup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 898-910.
[91]	Wohl, M. J. A., Giguère, B., Branscombe, N. R., & McVicar, D. N. (2011). One day we might be no more: Collective angst and protective action from potential distinctiveness loss. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 289-300.
[92]	Wohl, M. J. A., Squires, E. C., & Caouette, J. (2012). We were, we are, will we be? The social psychology of collective angst. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(5), 379-391.
[93]	World, Bank. (2011). World Bank national accounts data, and OECD National Accounts data files. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2011&start=2011
[94]	World, Bank. (2016). World Bank national accounts data, and OECD National Accounts data files. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2016&start=2016
[95]	Wu, N. (2022a). Misattributed blame? Attitudes toward globalization in the age of automation. Political Science Research and Methods, 10(3), 470-487.
[96]	Wu, N. (2022b). “Restrict foreigners, not robots”: Partisan responses to automation threat. Economics & Politics, 35(2), 1-24.
[97]	Wu, T. J., Liang, Y., & Wang, Y. (in press). The Buffering Role of Workplace Mindfulness: How Job Insecurity of Human- Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Impacts Employees’ Work-Life-Related Outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology.
[98]	Xu, L., Wang, X., Yu, F., & Peng, K. (2024). The influence of perceived robot threat on workplace objectification. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(2), 210-225. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00210
[99]	Yang, Y., Sedikides, C., Wang, Y., & Cai, H. (2024). Nature nurtures authenticity: Mechanisms and consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(1), 79-104.
[100]	Yam, K. C., Tang, P. M., Jackson, J. C., Su, R., & Gray, K. (2023). The rise of robots increases job insecurity and maladaptive workplace behaviors: Multimethod evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 850-870.
[101]	Yogeeswaran, K., Złotowski, J., Livingstone, M., Bartneck, C., Sumioka, H., & Ishiguro, H. (2016). The interactive effects of robot anthropomorphism and robot ability on perceived threat and support for robotics research. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 5(2), 29-47.
[102]	Yudkowsky, E. (2008). Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk. In N. Bostrom, & M. M. Ćirković (Eds.), Global catastrophic risks (Vol. 1, p. 184). New York: Oxford University Press.
[103]	Złotowski, J., Yogeeswaran, K., & Bartneck, C. (2017). Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 100, 48-54.

explore	methodologies	Experimental design	Independent variable measurement/manipulation	implicit variable	Key findings	brochure
1a	Archival database analysis	?	Perceived Robot Threat Scale (the Eurobarometer 87.1, 2017)	Donation index (the Eurobarometer 87.1, 2017)	Perceived robot threat is negatively correlated with the donation index.	27901
1b	Archival database analysis	?	Perceived Robot Threat Scale (the Eurobarometer 77.1, 2012)	Support for humanitarian assistance (the Euro barometer 77.1, 2012)	Perceived robotic threat is negatively associated with support for humanitarian assistance.	26751
2	poll	?	Perceived Robot Threat Scale (Yogeeswaran et al., 2016)	pro-social tendency (Osgood & Muraven, 2015)	Perceived robot threat was negatively associated with pro-social tendencies, mediated by collective anxiety.	148
3	Online Experiment	Robot threat (high vs. low)	video manipulation (Yogeeswaran et al., 2016; Z?otowski et al., 2017)	pro-social tendency (Osgood & Muraven, 2015)	Perceived robot threat reduces pro-social tendencies, mediated by collective anxiety.	270
4	Online Experiment	Robot threat (high vs. low)	writing manipulation (Xu et al., 2024)	pro-social tendency (Touré-Tillery & Light, 2018)	Perceived robot threat reduces pro-social tendencies, mediated by collective anxiety.	270
5	Online Experiment	Robot threat (high vs. low)× Inner and outer groups (inner vs. outer)	News page image manipulation (Jackson et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2024).	pro-social tendency (Osgood & Muraven, 2015)	Perceived robot threat reduces pro-social tendencies in the out-group, but not in the in-group.	400
6	Online Experiment	Robot threat (high vs. low)	News page image manipulation (Jackson et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2024).	pro-social tendency (Osgood & Muraven, 2015)	Perceived robot threat reduces pro-social tendencies in moral downward comparators, but not in moral upward comparators.	270
7	behavioral experiment	Robot threat (high vs. low)	writing manipulation (Xu et al., 2024)	Write letters of encouragement to people who need help (Gaesser et al., 2020)	Perceived robot threat reduces pro-social behavior.	161

explore	methodologies	Experimental design	Independent variable measurement/manipulation	implicit variable	Key findings	brochure
1a	Archival database analysis	?	Perceived Robot Threat Scale (the Eurobarometer 87.1, 2017)	Donation index (the Eurobarometer 87.1, 2017)	Perceived robot threat is negatively correlated with the donation index.	27901
1b	Archival database analysis	?	Perceived Robot Threat Scale (the Eurobarometer 77.1, 2012)	Support for humanitarian assistance (the Euro barometer 77.1, 2012)	Perceived robotic threat is negatively associated with support for humanitarian assistance.	26751
2	poll	?	Perceived Robot Threat Scale (Yogeeswaran et al., 2016)	pro-social tendency (Osgood & Muraven, 2015)	Perceived robot threat was negatively associated with pro-social tendencies, mediated by collective anxiety.	148
3	Online Experiment	Robot threat (high vs. low)	video manipulation (Yogeeswaran et al., 2016; Z?otowski et al., 2017)	pro-social tendency (Osgood & Muraven, 2015)	Perceived robot threat reduces pro-social tendencies, mediated by collective anxiety.	270
4	Online Experiment	Robot threat (high vs. low)	writing manipulation (Xu et al., 2024)	pro-social tendency (Touré-Tillery & Light, 2018)	Perceived robot threat reduces pro-social tendencies, mediated by collective anxiety.	270
5	Online Experiment	Robot threat (high vs. low)× Inner and outer groups (inner vs. outer)	News page image manipulation (Jackson et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2024).	pro-social tendency (Osgood & Muraven, 2015)	Perceived robot threat reduces pro-social tendencies in the out-group, but not in the in-group.	400
6	Online Experiment	Robot threat (high vs. low)	News page image manipulation (Jackson et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2024).	pro-social tendency (Osgood & Muraven, 2015)	Perceived robot threat reduces pro-social tendencies in moral downward comparators, but not in moral upward comparators.	270
7	behavioral experiment	Robot threat (high vs. low)	writing manipulation (Xu et al., 2024)	Write letters of encouragement to people who need help (Gaesser et al., 2020)	Perceived robot threat reduces pro-social behavior.	161

Nations		Sample size (N)		Sex (% female)		Age (M/SD)
Nations		Full Sample	Sample labor force	Full Sample	Sample labor force	Full Sample	Sample labor force
1	French	1004	412	56.37%	52.40%	52.13 (19.06)	42.19 (11.85)
2	Belgium	1023	430	51.22%	50.00%	52.64 (19.01)	43.81 (11.98)
3	the Netherlands	1015	544	49.75%	48.70%	52.41 (16.39)	47.36 (12.12)
4	German	1537	650	49.19%	50.70%	54.07 (19.39)	44.49 (12.22)
5	Italy	1022	471	54.01%	54.00%	49.3 (17.29)	45.72 (10.50)
6	Luxemburg	510	221	52.75%	52.70%	50.87 (18.53)	43.13 (11.51)
7	Denmark	1000	495	50.30%	49.90%	55.58 (17.87)	48.52 (11.94)
8	Irish	1021	509	51.91%	47.90%	48.60 (17.50)	43.62 (12.01)
9	United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	1346	620	50.45%	50.40%	53.27 (19.63)	43.40 (13.76)
10	Greece	1010	442	52.18%	45.50%	49.37 (17.97)	43.24 (12.06)
11	Spanish	1024	408	51.37%	45.60%	49.87 (18.43)	42.67 (11.49)
12	Portugal	1061	600	55.80%	55.20%	49.64 (18.01)	43.07 (11.92)
13	Suomi	1012	403	53.95%	52.30%	55.33 (18.89)	45.38 (12.77)
14	Sweden	1007	507	42.80%	40.80%	58.02 (17.24)	48.64 (13.52)
15	Austrian	1001	588	52.85%	50.90%	48.80 (16.96)	42.31 (11.58)
16	Cyprus	501	233	52.30%	46.40%	51.00 (18.16)	44.16 (11.70)
17	Czech Republic	1058	621	60.11%	55.90%	47.77 (16.64)	43.55 (11.58)
18	Estonia	1017	489	64.70%	60.90%	56.16 (18.31)	47.34 (12.27)
19	Hungary	1053	525	56.98%	49.70%	52.76 (17.60)	43.55 (11.72)
20	Latvia	1004	493	62.05%	61.30%	48.64 (17.35)	44.67 (13.62)
21	the Lithuanian republic, former Baltic Soviet republic	1001	404	64.24%	57.20%	55.66 (19.10)	45.00 (12.86)
22	Maltese	500	187	57.80%	48.70%	54.85 (19.00)	43.72 (14.35)
23	Polish	1008	514	59.23%	55.30%	48.74 (17.30)	42.08 (11.68)
24	Slovakia	1014	481	60.45%	56.80%	51.21 (17.53)	43.41 (11.40)
25	Slovenia	1027	438	59.69%	55.70%	52.95 (18.55)	43.89 (11.59)
26	Bulgaria	1044	589	53.07%	52.10%	48.95 (16.82)	43.83 (11.14)
27	Romania (Tw)	1033	528	56.53%	49.20%	45.17 (16.58)	40.14 (11.02)
28	Republic of Croatia (1991-)	1048	492	60.21%	58.30%	44.84 (17.11)	40.13 (11.05)
(grand) total		27, 901	13, 294	54.97%	51.50%	51.38 (18.25)	44.06 (12.20)

Nations		Sample size (N)		Sex (% female)		Age (M/SD)
Nations		Full Sample	Sample labor force	Full Sample	Sample labor force	Full Sample	Sample labor force
1	French	1004	412	56.37%	52.40%	52.13 (19.06)	42.19 (11.85)
2	Belgium	1023	430	51.22%	50.00%	52.64 (19.01)	43.81 (11.98)
3	the Netherlands	1015	544	49.75%	48.70%	52.41 (16.39)	47.36 (12.12)
4	German	1537	650	49.19%	50.70%	54.07 (19.39)	44.49 (12.22)
5	Italy	1022	471	54.01%	54.00%	49.3 (17.29)	45.72 (10.50)
6	Luxemburg	510	221	52.75%	52.70%	50.87 (18.53)	43.13 (11.51)
7	Denmark	1000	495	50.30%	49.90%	55.58 (17.87)	48.52 (11.94)
8	Irish	1021	509	51.91%	47.90%	48.60 (17.50)	43.62 (12.01)
9	United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	1346	620	50.45%	50.40%	53.27 (19.63)	43.40 (13.76)
10	Greece	1010	442	52.18%	45.50%	49.37 (17.97)	43.24 (12.06)
11	Spanish	1024	408	51.37%	45.60%	49.87 (18.43)	42.67 (11.49)
12	Portugal	1061	600	55.80%	55.20%	49.64 (18.01)	43.07 (11.92)
13	Suomi	1012	403	53.95%	52.30%	55.33 (18.89)	45.38 (12.77)
14	Sweden	1007	507	42.80%	40.80%	58.02 (17.24)	48.64 (13.52)
15	Austrian	1001	588	52.85%	50.90%	48.80 (16.96)	42.31 (11.58)
16	Cyprus	501	233	52.30%	46.40%	51.00 (18.16)	44.16 (11.70)
17	Czech Republic	1058	621	60.11%	55.90%	47.77 (16.64)	43.55 (11.58)
18	Estonia	1017	489	64.70%	60.90%	56.16 (18.31)	47.34 (12.27)
19	Hungary	1053	525	56.98%	49.70%	52.76 (17.60)	43.55 (11.72)
20	Latvia	1004	493	62.05%	61.30%	48.64 (17.35)	44.67 (13.62)
21	the Lithuanian republic, former Baltic Soviet republic	1001	404	64.24%	57.20%	55.66 (19.10)	45.00 (12.86)
22	Maltese	500	187	57.80%	48.70%	54.85 (19.00)	43.72 (14.35)
23	Polish	1008	514	59.23%	55.30%	48.74 (17.30)	42.08 (11.68)
24	Slovakia	1014	481	60.45%	56.80%	51.21 (17.53)	43.41 (11.40)
25	Slovenia	1027	438	59.69%	55.70%	52.95 (18.55)	43.89 (11.59)
26	Bulgaria	1044	589	53.07%	52.10%	48.95 (16.82)	43.83 (11.14)
27	Romania (Tw)	1033	528	56.53%	49.20%	45.17 (16.58)	40.14 (11.02)
28	Republic of Croatia (1991-)	1048	492	60.21%	58.30%	44.84 (17.11)	40.13 (11.05)
(grand) total		27, 901	13, 294	54.97%	51.50%	51.38 (18.25)	44.06 (12.20)

	variant	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27
1	distinguishing between the sexes	-
2	(a person’s) age	-0.012^*	-
3	communal	-0.01	-0.037^***	-
4	teach	0.01	-0.103^***	0.124^***	-
5	political orientation	0.021^**	0.020^***	0.00	-0.021^**	-
6	Technical skills ^a	0.056^***	-0.457^***	0.072^***	0.308^***	0.00	-
7	Technical skills ^b	0.00	-0.181^***	0.072^***	0.277^***	-0.01	0.762^***	-
8	Technical skills ^c	0.052^***	-0.324^***	0.082^***	0.276^***	-0.01	0.738^***	0.724^***	-
9	Job replacement	0.059^***	-0.077^***	0.044^***	-0.051^8	0.024^*	0.01	0.00	0.026^**	-
10	Related Understandings	-0.101^***	0.130^***	-0.062^***	-0.273^***	0.027^***	-0.334^***	-0.290^***	-0.289^***	-0.030^**	-
11	Useof robots ^a	0.00	0.080^***	-0.021^***	-0.080^***	-0.016^*	-0.123^***	-0.089^***	-0.097^***	-0.085^***	0.121^***	-
12	Use of robots ^b	-0.095^***	0.072^***	-0.013^*	-0.057^***	-0.017^*	-0.091^***	-0.079^***	-0.082^***	-0.133^***	0.115^***	0.129^***	-
13	Robot use ^c	-0.030^***	0.063^***	-0.026^***	-0.031^***	0.00	-0.043^***	-0.018^*	-0.039^***	-0.061^***	0.058^***	0.043^***	0.058^***	-
14	social hierarchy	0.01	-0.083^***	0.114^***	0.311^***	0.061^***	0.270^***	0.240^***	0.238^***	-0.061^***	-0.225^***	-0.110^***	-0.056^***	-0.035^***	-
15	Gini coefficient	0.00	-0.044^***	0.087^***	-0.136^***	0.01	-0.063^***	-0.065^***	-0.060^***	0.067^***	0.153^***	0.062^***	0.062^***	0.019^**	-0.159^***	-
16	ln GDP	0.065^***	0.081^***	-0.033^***	0.142^***	-0.071^***	0.154^***	0.180^***	0.156^***	-0.101^***	-0.224^***	-0.056^***	-0.056^***	-0.018^**	0.173^***	-0.336^***	-
17	Robot threat ^a	-0.065^***	0.025^***	-0.048^***	-0.139^***	-0.027^***	-0.116^***	-0.096^***	-0.089^***	0.036^***	0.119^***	0.050^***	0.054^***	0.038^***	-0.149^***	0.134^***	-0.091^***	-
18	Robot threat ^b	-0.053^***	0.073^***	-0.030^***	-0.127^***	-0.015^*	-0.226^***	-0.203^***	-0.204^***	-0.123^***	0.146^***	0.111^***	0.070^***	0.024^***	-0.092^***	0.01	0.034^***	0.102^***	-
19	Robot threat ^c	0.01	0.030^***	0.00	0.080^***	-0.018^**	0.101^***	0.132^***	0.094^***	-0.033^***	-0.155^***	0.01	0.00	0.029^***	0.00	0.025^***	0.075^***	0.216^***	-0.213^***	-
20	Robot threat ^d	-0.051^***	0.00	-0.018^**	-0.116^***	-0.01	-0.179^***	-0.192^***	-0.164^***	-0.052^***	0.184^***	0.059^***	0.047^***	0.00	-0.052^***	0.00	-0.012^*	-0.017^**	0.472^***	-0.376^***	-
21	Robot threat ^e	-0.069^***	0.050^***	-0.058^***	-0.185^***	-0.01	-0.162^***	-0.157^***	-0.141^***	0.045^***	0.169^***	0.054^***	0.070^***	0.030^***	-0.189^8	0.171^***	-0.126^***	0.638^***	0.159^***	0.158^***	0.044^***	-
22	(a) Robotic threat indicators¹	-0.072^***	0.041^***	-0.058^***	-0.177^***	-0.020^**	-0.152^***	-0.141^***	-0.127^***	0.046^***	0.157^***	0.056^***	0.067^***	0.036^***	-0.186^***	0.167^***	-0.119^***	0.902^***	0.145^***	0.202^***	0.017^**	0.912^***	-
23	Robotic threat indicators²	-0.084^***	0.069^***	-0.057^***	-0.188^***	-0.026^***	-0.222^***	-0.203^***	-0.193^***	-0.041^***	0.182^***	0.100^***	0.087^***	0.045^***	-0.179^***	0.130^***	-0.053^***	0.719^***	0.578^***	0.238^***	0.423^***	0.750^***	0.807^***	-
24	Helping others	0.076^***	0.045^***	-0.014^*	0.068^***	-0.067^***	0.097^***	0.108^***	0.082^***	-0.043^***	-0.086^***	0.00	-0.027^***	-0.017^**	0.066^***	0.020^**	0.580^***	-0.050^***	0.028^***	0.045^***	0.017^**	-0.071^***	-0.065^***	-0.014^*	-
25	monetary donation	0.064^*8	0.063^***	-0.057^***	0.119^***	-0.073^***	0.162^***	0.198^***	0.164^***	-0.093^***	-0.176^***	-0.025^***	-0.035^***	0.00	0.150^***	-0.320^***	0.759^***	-0.115^***	-0.01	0.051^***	-0.027^***	-0.159^***	-0.151^***	-0.102^***	0.625^***	-
26	give and take	0.031^***	0.053^***	-0.070^***	0.050^***	-0.058^***	0.106^***	0.136^***	0.129^***	-0.090^***	-0.162^***	-0.014^*	-0.039^***	-0.01	0.114^***	-0.445^***	0.755^***	-0.057^***	0.062^***	0.036^***	0.023^***	-0.094^***	-0.083^***	-0.017^**	0.473^***	0.681^***	-
27	Donation index	0.070^***	0.065^***	-0.053^***	0.101^***	-0.077^***	0.150^***	0.180^***	0.151^***	-0.089^***	-0.169^***	-0.017^**	-0.038^***	-0.01	0.134^***	-0.272^***	0.812^***	-0.094^***	0.023^***	0.055^***	0.00	-0.134^***	-0.125^***	-0.063^***	0.817^***	0.935^***	0.795^***	-
M			51.38	1.95	19.66	5.28	2.89	3.18	2.99	1.71	0.53	0.93	0.95	0.98	2.35	31.56	10.14	3.16	2.09	3.49	1.70	3.09	3.12	2.71	33.00	44.29	34.98	19.57
SD			18.25	0.77	5.23	2.18	1.07	0.92	0.96	0.88	0.50	0.26	0.22	0.13	0.99	3.83	0.61	0.85	0.84	0.67	0.77	0.89	0.79	0.47	11.00	11.59	17.38	9.25