1. The main problem addressed by InStance
The InStance project focused on the question of whether, and under what conditions, people adopt the Intentional Stance towards robots, and what this means for social attunement in human-robot interaction.
The Intentional Stance is a concept introduced by the philosopher Daniel Dennett, who proposed that we adopt the Intentional Stance toward others when we predict and explain their behaviour with reference to mental states, such as beliefs, desires or intentions. For example, when I see my friend extending her arm with a glass of water in my direction, I assume that she intends to hand me that glass, because she believes that I am thirsty and she wants to ease my thirst. The terms “intend”, “believe” or “want” refer to mental states, and the assumption is that through referring to mental states, I can explain someone else’s behaviour. However, for non-intentional systems (such as artefacts), we adopt the design stance - assuming that the system’s has been designed to behave in particular way. For example, when a coffee machine stops pouring coffee, we understand that this happens not because the machine wants to be mean to the user, but because it was designed to fill a mug with only a certain quantity of liquid.
In this context, it is intriguing to understand if people adopt the intentional or the design stance towards humanoid robots that look like humans and perhaps behave in a human-like way.
Adopting either the intentional stance is crucial not only for explaining others’ behaviour but presumably also for social attunement. That is, when I adopt the Intentional Stance, I direct my attention to where somebody is pointing, and we establish joint focus of attention, thereby becoming socially attuned. On the contrary, if I see that a machine’s artificial arm is pointing somewhere, I am unwilling to attend there, as I do not believe that the machine wants to show me something, i.e. there is no intentional communicative content in the gesture.
2. Overall objectives
The objectives of InStance were defined through a research agenda composed of four work packages, each focusing on a different factor that might influence the likelihood of adoption of the Intentional Stance towards robots. We identified the following factors: (i) human-like subtle behaviours in a robot; (ii) social signals which carry communicative intentions, such as eye contact with the human observer; (iii) cultural differences affecting the likelihood of attributing mental life to other beings; (iv) familiarity with robots.
3. Importance for society
InStance has important societal implications. Humanoid robots offer a promise of being our future assistants in daily mundane tasks, and of being at service for not only the dirty dangerous jobs such as search and rescue in disaster recovery, but also in daily life.
However, to make robots work efficiently with humans, it is of utmost importance that they are well “attuned” to how humans work and operate. InStance has explored the factors that influence the social attunement, as a function of the Intentional Stance.
Understanding factors affecting adoption of the Intentional Stance towards robots might be important also for designing robots for elderly care. Think of an elderly person whose robot reminds her to take medication at a specific time of the day. If the elderly person adopts the Intentional Stance towards their robot, the robot’s advice is taken as result of a good intention or willingness to help, rather than just preprogrammed “alarm clock”, which is much more tempting to ignore.
Finally, eliciting the adoption of the Intentional Stance might be crucial for educational robotics. Robots assisting in educational activities might certainly be more efficient when children see them as intentional, as opposed to only mundane artefacts. Attribution of intentionality might increase long-term engagement in educational activities and might prevent from abandoning the “mechanical toy” after a few instances of interactions.
