RUDN Journal of Psychology and PedagogicsRUDN Journal of Psychology and PedagogicsВестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Психология и педагогика2313-16832313-1705Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)3139110.22363/2313-1683-2022-19-2-253-281PERSONALITY IN THE DIGITAL AGE: DEVELOPMENT, COGNITION, COMMUNICATIONЛИЧНОСТЬ В ЦИФРОВУЮ ЭПОХУ: РАЗВИТИЕ, ПОЗНАНИЕ, КОММУНИКАЦИЯResearch ArticleEmotional Attitudes towards the Components of the Digital Environment (Based on the Text Analysis of Network Comments)Эмоциональное отношение к компонентам цифровой среды (на материале текстового анализа комментариев в Сети)https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9380-4478KuznetsovaYulia M.КузнецоваЮлия Михайловна

Ph.D. in Psychology, is Senior Researcher

кандидат психологических наук, старший научный сотрудник

kuzjum@yandex.ruFederal Research Center for Computer Science and Control of Russian Academy of SciencesФедеральный исследовательский центр «Информатика и управление» Российской академии наук02062022192Digital Society as a Cultural and Historical Context of Personality DevelopmentЦифровое общество как культурно-исторический контекст развития личности25328102072022Copyright ©; 2022, Kuznetsova Y.M.Copyright ©; 2022, Кузнецова Ю.М.2022Kuznetsova Y.M.Кузнецова Ю.М.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/psychology-pedagogics/article/view/31391

One of the psychological effects of digitalization is the establishment of specific relationships between a person and the cyber environment and its components. The paper presents the results of a study of the emotional component of attitudes towards the components of the digital environment, carried out using emotive-predicate analysis, a new method of computer text processing implemented in TITANIS, an advanced social media text analysis tool. Using this method, it is possible to automatically extract descriptions of emotional situations from texts in which the components of the digital environment are the cause or subject of 68 emotional states. The texts of 2048 online videos posted in the Russian-language segment of YouTube served as the material for the analysis. According to the frequency of occurrence, emotional situations involving various components of the digital environment are quite typical for even thematically irrelevant online discussions. The components of the digital environment mentioned in non-thematic discussions as participants in emotional situations are classified into the following three groups: (1) general concepts of digital technologies; (2) digital devices; (3) activities mediated by digital technologies. The lexemes of the latter group, denoting various aspects of network communication, are included in the vast majority of descriptions of emotional situations involving the components of the digital environment, and six times more often as causes of emotions than as subjects of emotional states. In general, the emotional attitude towards the components of the cyber environment as a whole is characterized as balanced, without a noticeable predominance of negative or positive emotions. However, negative states are more often attributed to the components of the cyber environment as the subjects than as the causes of emotions. The practical significance of the described method of text analysis as a means of assessing the emotional component of attitudes towards the components of the digital environment is determined by the influence that affective reactions of users have on the demand for technical innovations and the direction of their development.

Установление специфических отношений человека с киберсредой и ее компонентами является одним из психологических эффектов цифровизации. Представлены результаты исследования эмоциональной составляющей отношения к компонентам цифровой среды, проведенного с помощью эмотивно-предикатного анализа - нового метода компьютерной обработки текста, реализованного в инструменте TITANIS. Метод позволяет в автоматическом режиме извлекать из текстов описания эмоциональных ситуаций, в которых компоненты цифровой среды выступают причиной либо субъектом 68 эмоциональных состояний. Материалом для анализа послужили тексты 2048 сетевых обсуждений видео, размещенных в русскоязычном YouTube. Показано, что эмоциональные ситуации с участием различных компонентов цифровой среды достаточно типичны даже для далеких по своей тематике сетевых обсуждений. Упоминаемые в нетематических обсуждениях в качестве участников эмоциональных ситуаций компоненты цифровой среды отнесены к группам: общие понятия из сферы цифровых технологий, цифровые устройства, опосредованная цифровыми технологиями деятельность. Относящиеся к последней группе лексемы, обозначающие различные аспекты сетевой коммуникации, входят в абсолютное большинство описаний эмоциональных ситуаций с участием компонентов цифровой среды, при этом в шесть раз чаще в качестве причин эмоций, чем в качестве субъектов эмоциональных состояний. По своему знаку эмоциональное отношение к компонентам киберсреды в целом характеризуется как сбалансированное, без заметного преобладания негативных или позитивных эмоций, однако негативные состояния чаще атрибутируются компонентам киберсреды как субъектам, чем как причине эмоций. Практическая значимость описанного метода текстового анализа как средства, позволяющего оценивать эмоциональную составляющую отношения к компонентам киберсреды, определяется тем влиянием, которое аффективные реакции пользователей оказывают на востребованность технических инноваций и направленность их развития.

digital environmentanthropomorphismTITANISemotive-predicate analysisemotional situationonline discussionsцифровая средаантропоморфизмTITANISэмотивно-предикатный анализэмоциональная ситуациясетевые дискуссииThe study was carried out with the financial support of the RFBR, Project No. 21-011-31638опн.Исследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта 21-011-31638опн.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/s12369-008-0001-3Беляев Г.Ю. Социально-цифровая среда как источник новых возможностей и новых рисков для современного образования // Отечественная и зарубежная педагогика. 2020. Т. 1. № 4 (69). С. 109-123.Belyaev, G.Yu. (2020). Social and digital environment as a source of new opportunities and new risks for modern education. Otechestvennaya i Zarubezhnaya Pedagogika, (4(69)), 109–123.Буров С.П. Методы анализа социального взаимодействия человека и робота // Гуманитарная информатика. 2018. № 14. С. 18-26. https://doi.org/10.17223/23046082/14/2Briggs, G., Gessell, B., Dunlap, M., & Scheutz, M. (2014). Actions speak louder than looks: Does robot appearance affect human reactions to robot protest and distress? The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication: Conference Proceedings (pp. 1122–1127). Edinburgh: IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926402Гималетдинова Г.К., Довтаева Э.Х. Сентимент-анализ читательского интернет-комментария к политическому тексту // Политическая лингвистика. 2020. № 1 (79). С. 42-51. https://doi.org/10.26170/pl20-01-05Brondi, S., Pivetti, M., Di Battista, S., & Sarrica, M. (2021). What do we expect from robots? Social representations, attitudes and evaluations of robots in daily life. Technology in Society, 66, 101663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101663Ениколопов С.Н., Кузнецова Ю.М., Осипов Г.С., Смирнов И.В., Чудова Н.В. Метод реляционно-ситуационного анализа текста в психологических исследованиях // Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2021. Т. 18. № 4. С. 748-769. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2021-4-748-769Burov, S.P. (2018). Methods for assessing social human-robot interaction. Gumanitarnaya Informatika, (14), 18–26. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/23046082/14/2Журавлев А.Л., Нестик Т.А. Психологические факторы негативного отношения к новым технологиям // Психологический журнал. 2016. Т. 37. № 6. C. 5-14.Carroll, J.M. (1997). Human – computer interaction: Psychology as a science of design. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.61Зильберман Н.Н. Социальный робот в торговых центрах: первые результаты, основные вызовы и перспективы исследований // Гуманитарная информатика. 2019. № 16. С. 34-40. https://doi.org/10.17223/23046082/16/5Cave, S., Coughlan, K., & Dihal, K. (2019). “Scary Robots:” Examining public responses to AI. AIES '19: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 331–337). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. http://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314232Зильберман Н.Н., Чекунова А.В., Гладкий Д.А., Куликов И.А. Стереотипные представления детей о статусно-ролевых характеристиках социального робота (экспериментальное исследование) // Современные исследования социальных проблем. 2015. № 4 (48). С. 398-417. https://doi.org/10.12731/2218-7405-2015-4-36Connolly, J., Mocz, V., Salomons, N., Valdez, J., Tsoi, N., Scassellati, B., & Vázquez, M. (2020). Prompting prosocial human interventions in response to robot mistreatment. HRI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human – Robot Interaction (pp. 211–220). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. http://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374781Короткова В.О., Лобза О.В. Личностные детерминанты функционирования психических структур в цифровом пространстве // Научный результат. Педагогика и психология образования. 2021. Т. 7. № 4. С. 59-73. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8971-2021-7-4-0-5Doyle-Burke, D., & Haring, K.S. (2020). Robots are moral actors: Unpacking current moral HRI research through a moral foundations lens. Social Robotics: 12th International Conference, ICSR 2020, Golden, CO, USA, November 14–18, 2020, Proceedings (pp. 170–181). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62056-1_15Мдивани М.О. Антропоморфные тенденции в восприятии личного автомобиля // Вестник Самарской гуманитарной академии. Серия: Психология. 2019. № 1 (25). C. 74-81.Enikolopov, S.N., Kuznetsova, Y.M., Osipov, G.S., Smirnov, I.V., & Chudova, N.V. (2021). The method of relational-situational analysis of text in psychological research. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 18(4), 748–769. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2021-4-748-769Мдивани М.О. Взаимодействие индивида с антропогенной средой // Социальные и гуманитарные науки: теория и практика. 2018. № 1 (2). С. 535-547.Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2007). On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864Панов В.И., Патраков Э.В. Цифровизация информационной среды: риски, представления, взаимодействия. М.: Психологический институт РАО; Курск: Университетская книга, 2020. 199 с. https://doi.org/10.47581/2020/02.Panov.001Fast, E., & Horvitz, E. (2017). Long-term trends in the public perception of artificial intelligence. AAAI'17: Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 963–969). AAAI Press. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1609.04904Степнова Л.А., Сафонова Т.Е., Костюк Ю.А. Изучение цифрового сознания студентов методом семантического дифференциала // Мир науки. Педагогика и психология. 2020. Т. 8. № 6. С. 71.Gao, S., He, L., Chen, Y., Li, D., & Lai, K. (2020). Public perception of artificial intelligence in medical care: Content analysis of social media. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(7), e16649. https://doi.org/10.2196/16649Титова Т.А. Антропоморфизм как способ освоения действительности: социально-философский анализ: дис. … канд. филос. наук. Казань: КФУ, 2013. 166 с.Gimaletdinova, G.K., & Dovtaeva, E.Kh. (2020). Sentiment analysis of the reader’s internet commentary on a political text. Political Linguistics, (1), 42–51. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26170/pl20-01-05Шпильная Н.Н. Принцип суппозиционной связи лексемы и текста как ключевой принцип организации человеко-компьютерной коммуникации // Культура и текст. 2018. № 4 (35). С. 209-226.Goldenberg, A., Garcia, D., Halperin, E., & Gross, J.J. (2020). Collective emotions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(2), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420901574Bartneck C., Kulić D., Croft E., Zoghbi S. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2009. Vol. 1. No 1. Pp. 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3Gregor, B., & Gotwald, B. (2021). Perception of artificial intelligence by customers of science centers. Problemy Zarządzania (Management Issues), 19(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.91.2Briggs G., Gessell B., Dunlap M., Scheutz M. Actions speak louder than looks: does robot appearance affect human reactions to robot protest and distress? // The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication: Conference Proceedings. Edinburgh: IEEE, 2014. Pp. 1122-1127. http://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926402Horstmann, A.C., Bock, N., Linhuber, E., Szczuka, J.M., Straßmann, C., & Krämer, N.C. (2018). Do a robot’s social skills and its objection discourage interactants from switching the robot off? PLoS ONE, 13(7), e0201581. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201581Brondi S., Pivetti M., Di Battista S., Sarrica M. What do we expect from robots? Social representations, attitudes and evaluations of robots in daily life // Technology in Society. 2021. Vol. 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101663Io, H.N., & Lee, C.B. (2020) Social media comments about hotel robots. Journal of China Tourism Research, 16(4), 606–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2020.1769785Carroll J.M. Human-computer interaction: Psychology as a science of design // Annual Review of Psychology. 1997. Vol. 48. Pp. 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.61Keijsers, M., & Bartneck, C. (2018). Mindless robots get bullied. HRI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 205–214). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171266Cave S., Coughlan K., Dihal K. “Scary Robots”: examining public responses to AI // AIES '19: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019. Pp. 331-337. http://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314232Kelley, P.G., Yang, Y., Heldreth, C., Moessner, C., Sedley, A., & Woodruff, A. (2021). “Mixture of amazement at the potential of this technology and concern about possible pitfalls:” Public sentiment towards AI in 15 countries. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 44(4), 28–46.Connolly J., Mocz V., Salomons N., Valdez J., Tsoi N., Scassellati B., Vázquez M. Prompting prosocial human interventions in response to robot mistreatment // HRI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020. Pp. 211-220. http://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374781Korotkova, V.O., & Lobza, O.V. (2021). Personal determinants of the functioning of mental structures in the digital space. Research Result. Pedagogy and Psychology of Education, 7(4), 59–73. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8971-2021-7-4-0-5Doyle-Burke D., Haring K.S. Robots are moral actors: unpacking current moral HRI research through a moral foundations lens // Social Robotics: 12th International Conference, ICSR 2020, Golden, CO, USA, November 14-18, 2020, Proceedings. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2020. Pp. 170-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62056-1_15Kwon, D., Chung, M.J., Park, J.C., Yoo, C.D., Jee, E., Park, K., Kim, Y., Kim, H., Park, J., Min, H., Park, J.W., Yun, S., & Lee, K. (2008). Emotional exchange of a socially interactive robot. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 41(2), 4330–4335. https://doi.org/10.3182/20080706-5-KR-1001.00729Epley N., Waytz A., Cacioppo J.T. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism // Psychological Review. 2007. Vol. 114. No 4. Pp. 864-886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864Lazer, D.M.J., Pentland, A., Watts, D.J., Aral, S., Athey, S., Contractor, N., Freelon, D., Gonzalez-Bailon, S., King, G., Margetts, H., Nelson, A., Salganik, M.J., Strohmaier, M., Vespignani, A., & Wagner, C. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science, 369(6507), 1060–1062. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8170Fast E., Horvitz E. Long-term trends in the public perception of artificial intelligence // AAAI '17: Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 2017. Pp. 963-969. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1609.04904Li, S., Xu, L., Yu, F., & Peng, K. (2020). Does trait loneliness predict rejection of social robots? The role of reduced attributions of unique humanness: Exploring the effects of trait loneliness on anthropomorphism and acceptance of social robots. HRI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human – Robot Interaction (pp. 271–280). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374777Gao S., He L., Chen Y., Li D., Lai K. Public perception of artificial intelligence in medical care: content analysis of social media // Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020. Vol. 22. No 7. https://doi.org/10.2196/16649Liu, X., Burns, A.C., & Hou, Y. (2017). An investigation of brand-related usergenerated content on Twitter. Journal of Advertising, 46(2), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1297273Goldenberg A., Garcia D., Halperin E., Gross J.J. Collective emotions // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2020. Vol. 29. No 2. Pp. 154-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420901574Lucas, H., Poston, J., Yocum, N., Carlson, Z., & Feil-Seifer, D. (2016). Too big to be mistreated? Examining the role of robot size on perceptions of mistreatment. 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN): Conference Proceedings (pp. 1071–1076). IEEE Press. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745241Gregor B., Gotwald B. Perception of artificial intelligence by customers of science centers // Problemy Zarządzania (Management Issues). 2021. Vol. 19. No 1. Pp. 29-39. https://doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.91.2Malinowska, J.K. (2021). What does it mean to empathise with a robot? Minds and Machines, 31(3), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09558-7Horstmann A.C., Bock N., Linhuber E., Szczuka J.M., Straßmann C., Krämer N.C. Do a robot’s social skills and its objection discourage interactants from switching the robot off? // PLoS ONE. 2018. Vol. 13. No 7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201581Mdivani, M. (2019). Anthropomorphic trends in the perception of a personal car. Vestnik Samarskoi Gumanitarnoi Akademii. Seriya: Psikhologiya, (1), 74–81. (In Russ.)Io H.N., Lee C.B. Social media comments about hotel robots // Journal of China Tourism Research. 2020. Vol. 16. No 4. Рp. 606-625. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2020.1769785Mdivani, M.O. (2018). Interaction of individual with anthropogenous environment. Social Sciences and Humanities: Theory and Practice, (1), 535–547. (In Russ.)Keijsers M., Bartneck C. Mindless robots get bullied // HRI'18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018. Pp. 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171266Melo, C.D., Carnevale, P.J., & Gratch, J. (2011). The effect of expression of anger and happiness in computer agents on negotiations with humans. AAMAS '11: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: Conference Proceedings (vol. 3, pp. 937–944). Richland: IFAAMAS.Kelley P.G., Yang Y., Heldreth C., Moessner C., Sedley A., Woodruff A. “Mixture of amazement at the potential of this technology and concern about possible pitfalls”: public sentiment towards AI in 15 countries // IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin. 2021. Vol. 44. No 4. Рp. 28-46.Nadarzynski, T., Miles, O., Cowie, A., & Ridge, D. (2019). Acceptability of artificial intelligence (AI)-led chatbot services in healthcare: A mixed-methods study. Digital Health, 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207619871808Kwon D., Chung M.J., Park J.C., Yoo C.D., Jee E., Park K., Kim Y., Kim H., Park J., Min H., Park J.W., Yun S., Lee K. Emotional exchange of a socially interactive robot // IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 2008. Vol. 41. No 2. Pp. 4330-4335. https://doi.org/10.3182/20080706-5-KR-1001.00729Naneva, S., Gou, M.S., Webb, T.L., & Prescott, T.J. (2020). A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(6), 1179–1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00659-4Lazer D.M.J., Pentland A., Watts D.J., Aral S., Athey S., Contractor N., Freelon D., Gonzalez-Bailon S., King G., Margetts H., Nelson A., Salganik M.J., Strohmaier M., Vespignani A., Wagner C. Computational social science: obstacles and opportunities // Science. 2020. Vol. 369. No 6507. Pp. 1060-1062. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8170Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153Li S., Xu L., Yu F., Peng K. Does trait loneliness predict rejection of social robots? The role of reduced attributions of unique humanness: exploring the effects of trait loneliness on anthropomorphism and acceptance of social robots // HRI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020. Pp. 271-280. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374777Nicolas, S., & Wykowska, A. (2021). The personality of anthropomorphism: How the need for cognition and the need for closure define attitudes and anthropomorphic attributions toward robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, 106841. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2021.106841Liu X., Burns A.C., Hou Y. An investigation of brand-related user-generated content on Twitter // Journal of Advertising. 2017. Vol. 46. No 2. Pp. 236-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1297273Nomura, T., Fujita, A., Suzuki, D., & Umemuro, H. (2015). Development of the multi-dimensional robot attitude scale: Constructs of people’s attitudes towards domestic robots. Social Robotics. ICSR 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Conference Proceedings (vol. 9388, pp. 482–491). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_48Lucas H., Poston J., Yocum N., Carlson Z., Feil-Seifer D. Too big to be mistreated? Examining the role of robot size on perceptions of mistreatment // 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN): Conference Proceedings. IEEE Press, 2016. Pp. 1071-1076. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745241Nomura, T., Kanda, T., & Suzuki, T. (2006). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human – robot interaction. AI & Society, 20(2), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7Malinowska J.K. What does it mean to empathise with a robot? // Minds and Machines. 2021. Vol. 31. No 3. Pp. 361-376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09558-7Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kato, K. (2008). Prediction of human behavior inhuman – robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 24(2), 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.914004Melo C.D., Carnevale P.J., Gratch J. The effect of expression of anger and happiness in computer agents on negotiations with humans // AAMAS '11: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: Conference Proceedings. Richland: IFAAMAS, 2011. Vol. 3. Pp. 937-944.Onnasch, L., & Roesler, E. (2019). Anthropomorphizing robots: The effect of framing in human – robot collaboration. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 1311–1315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631209Nadarzynski T., Miles O., Cowie A., Ridge D. Acceptability of artificial intelligence (AI)-led chatbot services in healthcare: a mixed-methods study // Digital Health. 2019. Vol. 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207619871808Ouchchy, L., Coin, A., & Dubljevic, V. (2020). AI in the headlines: the portrayal of the ethical issues of artificial intelligence in the media. AI & Society, 35(4), 927–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00965-5Naneva S., Gou M.S., Webb T.L., Prescott T.J. A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2020. Vol. 12. No 6. Рp. 1179-1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00659-4Panov, V.I., & Patrakov, E.V. (2020). Digitalization of the information environment: Risks, representations, interactions. Moscow: Psychological Institute of RAE Publ.; Kursk: Universitetskaya Kniga Publ. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.47581/2020/02.Panov.001Nass C., Moon Y. Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers // Journal of Social Issues. 2000. Vol. 56. No 1. Pp. 81-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153Ray, C., Mondada, F., & Siegwart, R.Y. (2008). What do people expect from robots? 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems: Conference Proceedings (pp. 3816–3821). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2008.4650714Nicolas S., Wykowska A. The personality of anthropomorphism: how the need for cognition and the need for closure define attitudes and anthropomorphic attributions toward robots // Computers in Human Behavior. 2021. Vol. 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2021.106841Reeves, B., Hancock, J., & Liu, X. (2020). Social robots are like real people: First impressions, attributes, and stereotyping of social robots. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000018Nomura T., Fujita A., Suzuki D., Umemuro H. Development of the multi-dimensional robot attitude scale: constructs of people’s attitudes towards domestic robots // Social Robotics. ICSR 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Conference Proceedings. Cham: Springer, 2015. Vol. 9388. Pp. 482-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_48Riek, L.D., Rabinowitch, T., Chakrabarti, B., & Robinson, P. (2009). Empathizing with robots: Fellow feeling along the anthropomorphic spectrum. 2009 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and Workshops: Conference Proceedings (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2009.5349423Nomura T., Kanda T., Suzuki T. Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction // AI & Society. 2006. Vol. 20. No 2. Рp. 138-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7Rosen, J., Lindblom, J., Billing, E., & Lamb, M. (2021). Ethical challenges in the human – robot interaction field. ArXiv. arXiv:2104.09306. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.09306Nomura T., Kanda T., Suzuki T., Kato, K. Prediction of human behavior inhuman - robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots // IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 2008. Vol. 24. No 2. Рp. 442-451. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.914004Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A.M., Krämer, N.C., Hoffmann, L., Sobieraj, S., & Eimler, S.C. (2013). An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0173-8Onnasch L., Roesler E. Anthropomorphizing robots: the effect of framing in human - robot collaboration // Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2019. Vol. 63. No 1. Рp. 1311-1315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631209Ruijten, P.A.M., & Zhao, T. (2017). Computers and people alike. Investigating the similarity-attraction paradigm in persuasive technology. Persuasive Technology: Development and Implementation of Personalized Technologies to Change Attitudes and Behaviors. PERSUASIVE 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Conference Proceedings (vol. 10171, pp. 135–147). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_11Ouchchy L., Coin A., Dubljevic V. AI in the headlines: the portrayal of the ethical issues of artificial intelligence in the media // AI & Society. 2020. Vol. 35. No 4. Pp. 927-936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00965-5Savela, N., Garcia, D., Pellert, M., & Oksanen, A. (2021). Emotional talk about robotic technologies on Reddit: Sentiment analysis of life domains, motives, and temporal themes. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211067259Ray C., Mondada F., Siegwart R.Y. What do people expect from robots? // 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems: Conference Proceedings. IEEE, 2008. Pp. 3816-3821. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2008.4650714Schmidtler, J., Bengler, K., Dimeas, F., & Campeau-Lecours, A. (2017). A questionnaire for the evaluation of physical assistive devices (QUEAD): Testing usability and acceptance in physical human-robot interaction. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC): Conference Proceedings (pp. 876–881). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2017.8122720Reeves B., Hancock J., Liu X. Social robots are like real people: first impressions, attributes, and stereotyping of social robots // Technology, Mind, and Behavior. 2020. Vol. 1. No 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000018Shpilnaya, N.N. (2018). The principle of the suppositional connection of the lexeme and the text as a key principle of human-computer communication organization. Kul'tura i Tekst, (4), 209–226. (In Russ.)Riek L.D., Rabinowitch T., Chakrabarti B., Robinson P. Empathizing with robots: fellow feeling along the anthropomorphic spectrum // 2009 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and Workshops: Conference Proceedings. IEEE, 2009. Pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2009.5349423Spatola, N., & Wudarczyk, O.A. (2021). Ascribing emotions to robots: Explicit and implicit attribution of emotions and perceived robot anthropomorphism. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106934Rosen J., Lindblom J., Billing E.A., Lamb M. Ethical challenges in the human-robot interaction field // ArXiv. arXiv:2104.09306. 2021. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.09306Stepnova, L.A., Safonova, T.E., & Kostyuk, Ju.A. (2020). Study of students’ digital consciousness by the method of semantic differential. World of Science. Pedagogy and Psychology, 8(6), 71. (In Russ.)Rosenthal-von der Pütten A.M., Krämer N.C., Hoffmann L., Sobieraj S., Eimler S.C. An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2013. Vol. 5. No 1. Pp. 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0173-8Strait, M.K., Aguillon, C., Contreras, V., & Garcia, N. (2017). The public’s perception of humanlike robots: Online social commentary reflects an appearance-based uncanny valley, a general fear of a “Technology Takeover”, and the unabashed sexualization of female-gendered robots. 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN): Conference Proceedings (pp. 1418–1423). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172490Ruijten P.A.M., Zhao T. Computers and people alike. Investigating the similarity - attraction paradigm in persuasive technology // Persuasive Technology: Development and Implementation of Personalized Technologies to Change Attitudes and Behaviors. PERSUASIVE 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Conference Proceedings. Cham: Springer, 2017. Vol. 10171. Pp. 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_11Strait, M.K., Contreras, V., & Vela, C.D. (2018). Verbal disinhibition towards robots is associated with general antisociality. ArXiv. arXiv:1808.01076. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.01076Savela N., García D., Pellert M., Oksanen A. Emotional talk about robotic technologies on Reddit: sentiment analysis of life domains, motives, and temporal themes // New Media & Society. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211067259Sundar, S.S. (2020). Rise of machine agency: A framework for studying the psychology of human – AI Interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz026Schmidtler J., Bengler K., Dimeas F., Campeau-Lecours A. A questionnaire for the evaluation of physical assistive devices (QUEAD): testing usability and acceptance in physical human - robot interaction // 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC): Conference Proceedings. IEEE, 2017. Pp. 876-881. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2017.8122720Swaminathan, V., Schwartz, H.A., Menezes, R., & Hill, S. (2022). The language of brands in social media: Using topic modeling on social media conversations to drive brand strategy. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 57(2), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/10949968221088275Spatola N., Wudarczyk O. Ascribing emotions to robots: explicit and implicit attribution of emotions and perceived robot anthropomorphism // Computers in Human Behavior. 2021. Vol. 124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106934Takayama, L., Ju, W., & Nass, C. (2008). Beyond dirty, dangerous and dull: What everyday people think robots should do. HRI '08: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 25–32). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349827Strait M.K., Aguillon C., Contreras V., Garcia N. The public’s perception of humanlike robots: online social commentary reflects an appearance-based uncanny valley, a general fear of a “Technology Takeover”, and the unabashed sexualization of female-gendered robots // 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN): Conference Proceedings. IEEE, 2017. Рp. 1418-1423. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172490Titova, T.A. (2013). Anthropomorphism as a way of mastering reality: Socio-philosophical analysis. Ph.D. in Philosophy Thesis. Kazan: Kazan Federal University. (In Russ.)Strait M.K., Contreras V., Vela C.D. Verbal disinhibition towards robots is associated with general antisociality // ArXiv. arXiv:1808.01076. 2018. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.01076Viik, T. (2020). Falling in love with robots: A phenomenological study of experiencing technological alterities. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 11(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2020-0005Sundar S.S. Rise of machine agency: a framework for studying the psychology of human - AI Interaction (HAII) // Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2020. Vol. 25. No 1. Рp. 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz026Wang, X., & Krumhuber, E.G. (2018). Mind perception of robots varies with their economic versus social function. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1230. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01230Swaminathan, V., Schwartz, H.A., Menezes, R., & Hill, S. (2022). The language of brands in social media: Using topic modeling on social media conversations to drive brand strategy // Journal of Interactive Marketing. Vol. 57. No 2. Pp. 255-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/10949968221088275Waytz, A., Epley, N., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2010). Social cognition unbound: Insights into anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359302Takayama L., Ju W., Nass C. Beyond dirty, dangerous and dull: what everyday people think robots should do // HRI '08: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2008. Pp. 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349827Wiese, E., Metta, G., & Wykowska, A. (2017). Robots as intentional agents: Using neuroscientific methods to make robots appear more social. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1663. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663Viik T. Falling in love with robots: a phenomenological study of experiencing technological alterities // Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics. 2020. Vol. 11. No 1. Pp. 52-65. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2020-0005Zhang, B. (2021, October 7) Public opinion toward artificial intelligence. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/284smWang X., Krumhuber E.G. Mind perception of robots varies with their economic versus social function // Frontiers in Psychology. 2018. Vol. 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01230Zhuravlev, A.L., & Nestik, T.A. (2016). Psychological aspects of negative attitudes toward new technologies. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 37(6), 5–14. (In Russ.)Waytz A., Epley N., Cacioppo J.T. Social cognition unbound: insights into anthropomorphism and dehumanization // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2010. Vol. 19. No 1. Рp. 58-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359302Zilberman, N.N. (2019). Social robot in shopping malls: First results, challenges and prospects for researches. Gumanitarnaya Informatika, (16), 34–40. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/23046082/16/5Wiese E., Metta G., Wykowska A. Robots as intentional agents: using neuroscientific methods to make robots appear more social // Frontiers in Psychology. 2017. Vol. 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663Zilberman, N.N., Chekunova, A.V., Gladky, D.A., & Kulikov I.A. (2015). Stereotypical children’s attitudes about social robot’s status-role characteristics. Modern Research of Social Problems, (4), 398–417. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.12731/2218-7405-2015-4-36Zhang B. Public opinion toward artificial intelligence // OSF Preprints. 2021, October 7. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/284sm