Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42338770›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cognition2026

Humanlikeness as design, anthropomorphism as inference: a conceptual framework for human-robot interaction.

Elizabeth K Phillips, Ewart J de Visser

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elizabeth K PhillipsApplied Psychology and Autonomous Systems Laboratory, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States.
Ewart J de VisserUnited States Air Force Academy, Air Force Academy, CO, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humanlike robots are increasingly deployed in public and private settings, yet research and design efforts are hindered by persistent conceptual conflation between robots' humanlikeness and individuals' anthropomorphism, as well as by a hyperfocus on appearance-based definitions. This paper distinguishes humanlikeness as a multidimensional design property-the extent to which the design of an agent intentionally mimics human characteristics, traits, processes, or behaviors-from anthropomorphism as a psychological attribution process in which people ascribe human properties to non-human agents. We argue that treating these constructs as analytically distinct, while recognizing their reciprocal and dynamic interaction over time, enables more precise theorizing, clearer operationalization, and more actionable design guidance. To support cumulative interdisciplinary work, we situate both constructs within an integrated framework that organizes adjacent constructs (e.g., humanness, machinelikeness, animism, personification, and dehumanization) and provide curated measurement resources to facilitate principled study design and evaluation.

Indexed as

anthropomorphismdesign formshumanlike machineshumanlike robotshumannessmeasurement

Identifiers

PMID42338770
PMCPMC13271121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.