Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to provide a framework which structures different aspects that might positively and negatively influence the sensations nonliving sexual partners might evoke in order to guide future empirical research in the investigation of sexual responses toward machines. For this purpose, influential concepts from media psychology, human–machine interaction, and sexual science are explained and transferred to interactions with sex robots. This theoretical foundation is then used to develop the sexual interaction illusion model, which aims to conceptualize factors that are shaping users’ psychological immersion in sexual interaction with technology-based sex partners. More specifically, the model focuses on understanding users’ subjective (illusionary) experience that the interaction with an artificial partner feels like a sexual interaction with an existing, living social being.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2006). The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.501
Bar-Cohen, Y., & Hanson, D. T. (2009). The coming robot revolution: Expectations and fears about emerging intelligent, humanlike machines. New York, NY: Springer.
Bartneck, C., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2009). My robotic doppelgänger - A critical look at the uncanny valley. In The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2009: RO-MAN 2009; Sept. 27, 2009–Oct. 2, 2009, Toyama, Japan (pp. 269–276). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326351
Bartneck, C., & McMullen, M. (2018). Interacting with anatomically complete robots. In T. Kanda, S. Ŝabanović, G. Hoffman, & A. Tapus (Eds.), HRI’18: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction: March 5–8, 2018, Chicago, IL, USA (pp. 1–4). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173386.3173387
Blade Runner 2049. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Brewer, J., Kaye, J. J., Williams, A., & Wyche, S. (2006). Sexual interactions. In G. Olson & R. Jeffries (Eds.), CHI ’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’06 (p. 1695), New York, NY: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1125451.1125765
Bridges, A. J., Sun, C. F., Ezzell, M. B., & Johnson, J. (2016). Sexual scripts and the sexual behavior of men and women who use pornography. Sexualization, Media, and Society, 2, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2374623816668275
Briken, P., von Franqué, F., & Berner, W. (2013). Paraphilie und hypersexuelle störungen [Paraphilie and hypersexual disorders]. In P. Briken & W. Berner (Eds.), Praxisbuch Sexuelle Störungen [Book of sexual disorders]: Sexuelle Gesundheit, Sexualmedizin, Psychotherapie sexueller Störungen [Sexual health, Sexual medicine, Psychotherapy of sexual disorders] (1st ed., pp. 239–250). s.l.: Georg Thieme Verlag KG.
Chivers, M. L. (2005). A brief review and discussion of sex differences in the specificity of sexual arousal. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990500238802
CNET. (2017). Sculpting your future robot lover. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2jMDOmexGA&t=66s
Coleridge, S. T. (1817). Biographia literaria. Retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/6081/6081-h/6081-h.htm
Das, R. (2017). Goodbye loneliness, hello sexbots! how can robots transform human sex? Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/reenitadas/2017/07/17/goodbye-loneliness-hello-sexbots-how-can-robots-transform-human-sex/#6d50c81576e3
Duffy, B. R., & Zawieska, K. (2012). Suspension of disbelief in social robotics. In I. Staff (Ed.), 2012 IEEE Ro-Man (pp. 484–489). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2012.6343798
Ferguson, A. (2010). The sex doll: A history. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Studies in emotion and social interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gagnon, J., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Gordon, G. N. (1980). Erotic communications: Studies in sex, sin and censorship. Communication arts books. New York, NY: Hastings.
Heiman, J. R. (1977). A psychophysiological exploration of sexual arousal patterns in females and males. Psychophysiology, 14, 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1977.tb01173.x
Hoffmann, L., Krämer, N. C., Lam-chi, A., & Kopp, S. (2009). Media equation revisited: Do users show polite reactions towards an embodied agent? In Z. Ruttkay, M. Kipp, A. Nijholt, & H. H. Vilhjálmsson (Eds.), Intelligent virtual agents (Vol. 5773, pp. 159–165). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Johnson, D., Gardner, J., & Wiles, J. (2004). Experience as a moderator of the media equation: The impact of flattery and praise. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61, 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.12.008
Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
Lars and the Real Girl. (2007). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/
Levy, D. (2008). Love and sex with robots: The evolution of human-robot relations (1st Harper Perennial ed.). New York, NY: Harper.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers. McGraw-Hill paperbacks. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Leitenberg, H., & Henning, K. (1995). Sexual fantasy. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 469–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.469
Leigh, B. C. (1989). Reasons for having and avoiding sex: Gender, sexual orientation, and relationship to sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 26(2), 199–209.https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498909551506
MacDorman, K. F., Green, R. D., Ho, C.-C., & Koch, C. T. (2009). Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.026
Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 7, 33–35.
Mosher, D. L. (1988). Pornography defined. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 1, 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v01n01_06
Murray, J. H. (2001). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. In B. Adelson (Ed.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 72–78). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703
Nummenmaa, L., Hietanen, J. K., Santtila, P., & Hyönä, J. (2012). Gender and visibility of sexual cues influence eye movements while viewing faces and bodies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1439–1451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9911-0
Ortega-Brena, M. (2009). Peek-a-boo, I see you: Watching Japanese hard-core animation. Sexuality and Culture, 13, 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-008-9039-5
Powers, A., Kramer, A. D. I., Lim, S., Kuo, J., Lee, S.-L., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In RO-MAN 2005: 14th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication: August 14-15, 2005, Nashville, Tennessee (pp. 158–163). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513773
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Richardson, K. (2016). The asymmetrical ‘relationship’. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45, 290–293. https://doi.org/10.1145/2874239.2874281
Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A. M., Hoffmann, L., Klatt, J., & Krämer, N. C. (2011). Quid pro quo? reciprocal self-disclosure and communicative accommodation towards a virtual interviewer. In H. H. Vilhjálmsson, S. Kopp, S. Marsella, & K. R. Thórisson (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science, lecture notes in artificial intelligence: Vol. 6895. Intelligent virtual agents: 11th International Conference, IVA 2011, Reykjavik, Iceland, September 15–17, 2011; Proceedings (Vol. 6895, pp. 183–194). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23974-8_20
Safron, A. (2016). What is orgasm? A model of sexual trance and climax via rhythmic entrainment. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 6, 31763.
Sandoval, E. B., Brandstetter, J., Obaid, M., & Bartneck, C. (2016). Reciprocity in human-robot interaction: A quantitative approach through the prisoner’s dilemma and the ultimatum game. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8, 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0323-x
Sharkey, N., van Wynsberghe, A., Robbins, S., & Hancock, E. (2017). Our sexual future with robots: A foundation for responsible robotics consultation report. Retrieved from https://responsible-robotics-myxf6pn3xr.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FRR-Consultation-Report-Our-Sexual-Future-with-robots-1-1.pdf
Skakoon-Sparling, S., Cramer, K. M., & Shuper, P. A. (2016). The impact of sexual arousal on sexual risk-taking and decision-making in men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0589-y
Sue, D. (1979). Erotic fantasies of college students during coitus. Journal of Sex Research, 15(4), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022449790955105
Sullins, J. P. (2012). Robots, love, and sex: The ethics of building a love machine. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3, 398–409. https://doi.org/10.1109/T-AFFC.2012.31
Svab. (2010). Perceptions of sexual reciprocity in female university students in Slovenia. Annales Series Historia Et Sociologia, 21, 167–176.
Szczuka, J. M., & Krämer, N. C. (2017). Not only the lonely—How men explicitly and implicitly evaluate the attractiveness of sex robots in comparison to the attractiveness of women, and personal characteristics influencing this evaluation. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti1010003
Worthen, M. G. F. (2016). Sexual deviance and society: A sociological examination (1st ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Yeoman, I., & Mars, M. (2012). Robots, men and sex tourism. Futures, 44, 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.11.004
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Szczuka, J.M., Hartmann, T., Krämer, N.C. (2019). Negative and Positive Influences on the Sensations Evoked by Artificial Sex Partners: A Review of Relevant Theories, Recent Findings, and Introduction of the Sexual Interaction Illusion Model. In: Zhou, Y., Fischer, M.H. (eds) AI Love You. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19734-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19734-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19733-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19734-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)