社交机器人对3~5岁儿童分享行为的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0573

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究考察社交机器人对3岁和5岁儿童亲社会行为的影响。实验1通过操纵观察者(人类、社交机器人、无)这一变量, 探讨其对3岁和5岁儿童分享行为的影响。结果表明在无观察者条件下,5岁儿童分享贴纸数量显著多于3岁儿童。对3岁儿童来说, 人类和机器人观察者条件下分享贴纸数量显著多于无观察者条件, 人类和机器人观察者条件不存在显著的差异。实验2操纵社交机器人心理能动性(有、无、控制组), 结果发现3岁儿童在有心理能动性的机器人观察条件下比其他两种观察条件下分享更多的贴纸,表现出更多的亲社会行为。本研究表明3岁儿童的亲社会行为会受到机器人心理能动性的影响, 这为人机互动领域的未来应用和研究提供了一定视角和依据。

关键词: 社交机器人, 亲社会行为, 分享, 心理能动性

Abstract:

Prosocial behavior benefits both individuals and society. Previous research has shown that human observers can influence the prosocial behavior of 5-year-old children. Psychological agency refers to the ability to think, make decisions, possess knowledge reserves, and interact responsively. Prior studies have indicated that the perceived psychological agency of robots affects children's selective trust in them. Based on this background, this study aimed to understand the impact of social robots on children's prosocial behavior in the context of human-robot interaction.

Experiment 1 (N = 162), examined the effect of different observer types on preschool children’s prosocial behavior, utilizing a 3 (observer type: human, social robot, none) × 2 (age group: 3 years, 5 years) between-subjects design. The experimenter had all participating children interact with a social robot before administering an animism test. Then, the children were randomly assigned to one of three groups: human observer, social robot observer, and no observer, and participated in an anonymous dictator game to share stickers. After the game, the experimenter asked the children for justifications for their sticker-sharing behavior. Experiment 2 further investigated the effect of different levels of robot psychological agency on 3-year-old’s prosocial behavior. In Experiment 2 (N = 192), the robot's psychological agency was manipulated, such that robots with psychological agency showed the ability to think, make decisions, have knowledge reserves, and interact with others. 3-year-old children were assigned to interact with a social robot with psychological agency or one without psychological agency, as well as a control group. Children in the psychological agency group interacted with a social robot and then took an animism test. Subsequently, the children participated in the anonymous dictator game in front of the robot. The control group children did not interact with the robot and directly participated in the anonymous dictator game. Following, the experimenter interviewed children in each group and recorded the reasons for their sticker-sharing behavior. In both experiments, the experimenter recorded the number of stickers shared by the children after they left.

Study 1 found that 5-year-old children shared more stickers (exhibited more prosocial behavior) as compared to 3-year-old children. For 3-year-old children, the number of stickers shared in the human and robot observer conditions was significantly higher than in the no observer condition, with no significant difference between the human and robot observer conditions. Study 2 manipulated the psychological agency of social robots to explore its effect on the prosocial behavior of 3-year-old children. The results showed that 3-year-old children shared more stickers in the presence of a robot with psychological agency compared to the other two conditions. The study also explored the animism tendencies of children toward robots, indicating that 5-year-old children exhibited less animism than 3-year-old children. Furthermore, 3-year-old children attributed more psychological and life-like characteristics to robots with psychological agency as compared to those without.

The research confirms that observers influence children’s prosocial behavior and finds that the prosocial behavior of 3-year-old children is affected by the psychological agency of robots. Additionally, this study explores the animism tendencies of Chinese children of different ages toward social robots. These findings provide perspectives and foundations for future applications and research in the field of human-robot interaction.

Key words: social robot, prosocial behavior, sharing, psychological agency

中图分类号:

B844

李卉, 刘思懿, 庞怡. (2025). 社交机器人对3~5岁儿童分享行为的影响. 心理学报, 57(4), 573-583.

LI Hui, LIU Siyi, PANG Yi. (2025). The effect of a social robot on the sharing behavior of 3- to 5-year-old children. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(4), 573-583.

图/表 5

参考文献 48

[1]	Belpaeme, T., Baxter, P., De Greeff, J., Kennedy, J., Read, R., Looije, R.,... Zelati, M. C. (2013). Child-robot interaction: Perspectives and challenges. In Social Robotics: 5th International Conference, ICSR 2013, Bristol, UK, October 27-29, 2013, Proceedings 5 (pp. 452-459). Springer International Publishing.
[2]	Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21), eaat5954. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
[3]	Benenson, J. F., Pascoe, J., & Radmore, N. (2007). Children’s altruistic behavior in the dictator game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(3), 168-175.
[4]	Beran, T. N., Ramirez-Serrano, A., Kuzyk, R., Fior, M., & Nugent, S. (2011). Understanding how children understand robots: Perceived animism in child-robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(7-8), 539-550.
[5]	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. doi: 10.1037/dev0000884 pmid: 32463269
[6]	Carlo, G., McGinley, M., Hayes, R., Batenhorst, C., & Wilkinson, J. (2007). Parenting styles or practices? Parenting, sympathy, and prosocial behaviors among adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(2), 147-176.
[7]	Chernyak, N., & Gary, H. E. (2016). Children’s cognitive and behavioral reactions to an autonomous versus controlled social robot dog. Early Education and Development, 27(8), 1175-1189.
[8]	Chernyak, N., & Kushnir, T. (2013). Giving preschoolers choice increases sharing behavior. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1971-1979. doi: 10.1177/0956797613482335 pmid: 23955355
[9]	Deng, S. C., Lin, Z. H., Lu, Y. Q., & Li, X. Q. (2023). New playmates in the age of intelligence: Characteristics of children’s interactions with robots and their impact on child development. Advances in Psychological Science, 31(12), 2319-2336.
	[邓士昌, 林子涵, 陆昱谦, 李象千. (2023). 智能时代的新玩伴:儿童与机器人的互动特征及其对儿童发展的影响. 心理科学进展, 31(12), 2319-2336.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.02319
[10]	Dunfield, K. A., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (2013). Classifying prosocial behavior: Children’s responses to instrumental need, emotional distress, and material desire. Child Development, 84(5), 1766-1776. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12075 pmid: 23461793
[11]	Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91-119. pmid: 3562705
[12]	Eisenberg, N., VanSchyndel, S. K., & Spinrad, T. L. (2016). Prosocial motivation: Inferences from an opaque body of work. Child Development, 87(6), 1668-1678. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12638 pmid: 28262941
[13]	Engelmann, J. M., Herrmann, E., & Tomasello, M. (2017). Concern for group reputation increases prosociality in young children. Psychological Science, 29(2), 181-190.
[14]	Engelmann, J. M., Over, H., Herrmann, E., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Young children care more about their reputation with ingroup members and potential reciprocators. Developmental Science, 16(6), 952-958. doi: 10.1111/desc.12086 pmid: 24118719
[15]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
[16]	Fehr, E., Bernhard, H., & Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. Nature, 454(7208), 1079-1083.
[17]	Fujisawa, K. K., Kutsukake, N., & Hasegawa, T. (2008). Reciprocity of prosocial behavior in Japanese preschool children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(2), 89-97.
[18]	Giannakos, M., Markopoulos, P., Hourcade, J. P., & Antle, A. N. (2022). “Lots done, more to do”: The current state of interaction design and children research and future directions. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 33, 100469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100469
[19]	Gummerum, M., Hanoch, Y., & Keller, M. (2008). When child development meets economic game theory: An interdisciplinary approach to investigating social development. Human Development, 51(4), 235-261.
[20]	Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450(7169), 557-559.
[21]	House, B. R., Silk, J. B., Henrich, J., Barrett, H. C., Scelza, B. A., Boyette, A. H., … Laurence, S. (2013). Ontogeny of prosocial behavior across diverse societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(36), 14586-14591.
[22]	Jipson, J. L., & Gelman, S. A. (2007). Robots and rodents: Children’s inferences about living and nonliving kinds. Child Development, 78(6), 1675-1688.
[23]	Jipson, J. L., Gülgöz, S., & Gelman, S. A. (2016). Parent-child conversations regarding the ontological status of a robotic dog. Cognitive Development, 39, 21-35.
[24]	Kim, M., Yi, S., & Lee, D. (2019). Between living and nonliving: Young children’s animacy judgments and reasoning about humanoid robots. PLoS ONE, 14(6), e0216869. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216869
[25]	Lai, J. X., Yang, H., & Guo, L. P. (2012). On the preschool children’s sharing behavior and its implication. Studies in Early Childhood Education, 206(2), 20-26.
	[赖佳欣, 杨恒, 郭力平. (2012). 学前儿童分享行为的差异性. 学前教育研究, 206(2), 20-26.]
[26]	Liu, B., Huang, Z., Xu, G., Jin, Y., Chen, Y., Li, X., … Jing, J. (2016). Altruistic sharing behavior in children: Role of theory of mind and inhibitory control. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 222-228. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.010 pmid: 26452508
[27]	Liu, L., Xiao, X., Liu, L., Xu, L., Zhang, X., & Li, Y. (2019). Children’s quality-based resource allocation in different involvement contexts: The role of in-group favoritism. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(5), 584-597. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00584
	[刘璐, 肖雪, 刘丽莎, 徐良苑, 张旭然, 李燕芳. (2019). 儿童在不同卷入情境下基于资源价值的分配行为特点: 内群体偏爱的作用. 心理学报, 51(5), 584-597.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00584
[28]	Liu, Y., Odic, D., Tang, X., Ma, A., Laricheva, M., Chen, G.,... Milner-Bolotin, M. (2023). Effects of robotics education on young children’s cognitive development: A Pilot study with eye-tracking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(3), 295-308.
[29]	Malti, T., Gummerum, M., Ongley, S., Chaparro, M., Nola, M., & Bae, N. Y. (2016). “Who is worthy of my generosity?” Recipient characteristics and the development of children’s sharing. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(1), 31-40.
[30]	Martin, D. U., MacIntyre, M. I., Perry, C., Clift, G., Pedell, S., & Kaufman, J. (2020). Young children’s indiscriminate helping behavior toward a humanoid robot. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 239. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00239
[31]	Michaelis, J. E., & Mutlu, B. (2018). Reading socially: Transforming the in-home reading experience with a learning-companion robot. Science Robotics, 3(21), eaat5999. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5999
[32]	Nijssen, S. R. R., Müller, B. C. N., Bosse, T., & Paulus, M. (2021). You, robot? The role of anthropomorphic emotion attributions in children’s sharing with a robot. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 30, 100319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100319
[33]	Okanda, M., Taniguchi, K., & Itakura, S. (2019). The role of animism tendencies and empathy in adult evaluations of robot. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on human-agent interaction (pp. 51-58). Kyoto, Japan: Association for Computing Machinery.
[34]	Okanda, M., Taniguchi, K., Wang, Y., & Itakura, S. (2021). Preschoolers’ and adults’ animism tendencies toward a humanoid robot. Computers in Human Behavior, 118, 106688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106688
[35]	Okumura, Y., Hattori, T., Fujita, S., & Kobayashi, T. (2023). A robot is watching me!: Five-year-old children care about their reputation after interaction with a social robot. Child Development, 94(4), 865-873. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13903 pmid: 36752147
[36]	Pang, Y., & Li, H. (2024). When the Recipient is a Social Robot: The impact of negative behavioral valence on 5-year-old children’s sharing. International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2378247
[37]	Peter, J., Kühne, R., & Barco, A. (2021). Can social robots affect children’s prosocial behavior? An experimental study on prosocial robot models. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106712
[38]	Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
[39]	Rao, N., & Stewart, S. M. (1999). Cultural influences on sharer and recipient behavior: Sharing in Chinese and Indian preschool children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(2), 219-241.
[40]	Schlottmann, A., & Ray, E. (2010). Goal attribution to schematic animals: Do 6-month-olds perceive biological motion as animate? Developmental Science, 13(1), 1-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00854.x pmid: 20121858
[41]	Schmidt, M. F. H., & Sommerville, J. A. (2011). Fairness expectations and altruistic sharing in 15-month-old human infants. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e23223. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023223
[42]	Somanader, M. C., Saylor, M. M., & Levin, D. T. (2011). Remote control and children’s understanding of robots. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(2), 239-247. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.01.005 pmid: 21349536
[43]	Spinrad, T. L., & Gal, D. E. (2018). Fostering prosocial behavior and empathy in young children. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 40-44. doi: S2352-250X(17)30128-8 pmid: 28830005
[44]	Su, Y. J., Zhang, H., & Zhang, K. (2012). Social decision- making: The equilibrium between self interest and the interests of others. Journal of Psychological Science, 35(6), 1423-1428.
	[苏彦捷, 张慧, 张康. (2012). 社会决策: 自我利益与他人利益的权衡. 心理科学, 35(6), 1423-1428.]
[45]	Tung, F. W. (2016). Child perception of humanoid robot appearance and behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(6), 493-502.
[46]	Vonk, J., Jett, S. E., Tomeny, T. S., Mercer, S. H., & Cwikla, J. (2020). Young children’s theory of mind predicts more sharing with friends over time. Child Development, 91(1), 63-77.
[47]	Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2013). The emergence of contingent reciprocity in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 338-350. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.06.002 pmid: 23917162
[48]	Xiong, M., Shi, J., Wu, Z., & Zhang, Z. (2016). Five-year-old preschoolers’ sharing is influenced by anticipated reciprocation. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 460. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00460

年龄	人类观察者		机器人观察者		无观察者
年龄	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
3岁	3.11	2.61	3.59	2.19	1.59	2.06
5岁	3.93	1.59	3.11	2.33	3.30	1.98

年龄	人类观察者		机器人观察者		无观察者
年龄	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
3岁	3.11	2.61	3.59	2.19	1.59	2.06
5岁	3.93	1.59	3.11	2.33	3.30	1.98

年龄	生物		心理		感知		生命		人造
年龄	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
3岁	0.70	0.91	1.15	0.91	1.59	0.70	0.73	0.55	0.62	0.70
5岁	0.15	0.37	1.22	0.87	1.08	0.70	0.54	0.65	1.52	0.94
总计	0.43	0.74	1.18	0.89	1.33	0.74	0.64	0.61	1.07	0.94

年龄	生物		心理		感知		生命		人造
年龄	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
3岁	0.70	0.91	1.15	0.91	1.59	0.70	0.73	0.55	0.62	0.70
5岁	0.15	0.37	1.22	0.87	1.08	0.70	0.54	0.65	1.52	0.94
总计	0.43	0.74	1.18	0.89	1.33	0.74	0.64	0.61	1.07	0.94

能动性	生物		心理		感知		生命		人造
能动性	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
有	0.69	0.92	1.16	0.89	1.35	0.90	1.16	0.73	1.10	0.91
无	0.43	0.70	0.84	0.93	1.27	0.98	0.40	0.49	1.20	0.86
总计	0.56	0.83	1.00	0.92	1.31	0.94	0.78	0.73	1.15	0.88