The computer, a choreographer? Aesthetic responses to randomly-generated dance choreography by a computer

Is artificial intelligence (AI) changing our culture or creating its own? With advancements in AI and machine learning, artistic creativity is moving to a brave new world of possibility and complexity, while at the same time posing challenging questions, such as what defines something as art, what is the role of human creativity in an automated world, and do we evaluate artificial art in the same way as art made by humans? Across two pre-registered and statistically powered experiments we shed light on the nature of aesthetic responses toward computer-generated art by investigating observer prejudices against computer-generated dance choreography, and the impact of expertise and pre-conceived beliefs about the origin of artistic creation. Our results provide substantive evidence that an explicit bias exists among dance experts against computer-generated choreography. The mere belief about a dance work's origin biases aesthetic responses toward artworks among both dance experts and dance naïve participants. The implications of the current study serve to inform several disciplines across the arts and sciences including but not limited to empirical aesthetics, artificial intelligence, engineering, robotics, and social cognition and neuroscience. Along with physical form and content of artificial agents and art productions, the viewers' knowledge and attitudes toward artistic AI and artificial agents will need to be taken into consideration for effective human—computer/human—AI interactions

Exploring the relationship between anthropomorphism and theory-of-mind in brain and behaviour

The process of understanding the minds of other people, such as their emotions and intentions, is mimicked when individuals try to understand an artificial mind. The assumption is that anthropomorphism, attributing human-like characteristics to non-human agents and objects, is an analogue to theory-of-mind, the ability to infer mental states of other people. Here, we test to what extent these two constructs formally overlap. Specifically, using a multi-method approach, we test if and how anthropomorphism is related to theory-of-mind using brain (Experiment 1) and behavioural (Experiment 2) measures. In a first exploratory experiment, we examine the relationship between dispositional anthropomorphism and activity within the theory-of-mind brain network (n = 108). Results from a Bayesian regression analysis showed no consistent relationship between dispositional anthropomorphism and activity in regions of the theory-of-mind network. In a follow-up, pre-registered experiment, we explored the relationship between theory-of-mind and situational and dispositional anthropomorphism in more depth. Participants (n = 311) watched a short movie while simultaneously completing situational anthropomorphism and theory-of-mind ratings, as well as measures of dispositional anthropomorphism and general theory-of-mind. Only situational anthropomorphism predicted the ability to understand and predict the behaviour of the film's characters. No relationship between situational or dispositional anthropomorphism and general theory-of-mind was observed. Together, these results suggest that while the constructs of anthropomorphism and theory-of-mind might overlap in certain situations, they remain separate and possibly unrelated at the personality level. These findings point to a possible dissociation between brain and behavioural measures when considering the relationship between theory-of-mind and anthropomorphism

The role of expertise and culture in visual art appreciation

Is art appreciation universal? Previous evidence suggests a general preference for representational art over abstract art, and a tendency to like art originating from one’s own culture more than another culture (an ingroup bias), modulated by art expertise. However, claims about universality are difficult given that most research has focused on Western populations. Across two pre-registered and statistically powered experiments, we explore the role of culture and art expertise in the aesthetic evaluation of Indian and Western paintings and dance depicting both abstract and representational content, by inviting expert and art-naïve Indian and Western participants to rate stimuli on beauty and liking. Results suggest an ingroup bias (for dance) and a preference for representational art (for paintings) exists, both modulated by art expertise. As predicted, the ingroup bias was present only in art-naïve participants, and the preference for representational art was lower in art experts, but this modulation was present only in Western participants. The current findings have two main implications: (1) they inform and constrain understanding of universality of aesthetic appreciation, cautioning against generalising models of empirical aesthetics to non-western populations and across art forms, (2) they highlight the importance of art experience as a medium to counter prejudices

Exploring the relationship between anthropomorphism and theory-of-mind in brain and behaviour

The process of understanding the minds of other people, such as their emotions and intentions, is mimicked when individuals try to understand an artificial mind. The assumption is that anthropomorphism, attributing human-like characteristics to non-human agents and objects, is an analogue to theory-of-mind, the ability to infer mental states of other people. Here, we test to what extent these two constructs formally overlap. Specifically, using a multi-method approach, we test if and how anthropomorphism is related to theory-of-mind using brain (Experiment 1) and behavioural (Experiment 2) measures. In a first exploratory experiment, we examine the relationship between dispositional anthropomorphism and activity within the theory-of-mind brain network (n = 108). Results from a Bayesian regression analysis showed no consistent relationship between dispositional anthropomorphism and activity in regions of the theory-of-mind network. In a follow-up, pre-registered experiment, we explored the relationship between theory-of-mind and situational and dispositional anthropomorphism in more depth. Participants (n = 311) watched a short movie while simultaneously completing situational anthropomorphism and theory-of-mind ratings, as well as measures of dispositional anthropomorphism and general theory-of-mind. Only situational anthropomorphism predicted the ability to understand and predict the behaviour of the film's characters. No relationship between situational or dispositional anthropomorphism and general theory-of-mind was observed. Together, these results suggest that while the constructs of anthropomorphism and theory-of-mind might overlap in certain situations, they remain separate and possibly unrelated at the personality level. These findings point to a possible dissociation between brain and behavioural measures when considering the relationship between theory-of-mind and anthropomorphism

PREPRINT: Promoting Civility in Formal And Informal Open Science Contexts

The open-science movement is driven by the desire to increase research transparency, accessibility, and equity in conducting, reporting, and sharing research. Because open scienceaims to enable access and inclusion, and because incivility impedes both access and inclusion, many open-science organizations endorse the need for interpersonal civility. In thisarticle, we present empirically validated solutions for promoting interpersonal civility in both formal and informal open-science contexts. We begin by defining formal versus informal contexts, as well as illustrating the advantages of each for achieving open-science goals. We present publicly documented instances of interpersonal incivility that have occurred in both formal and informal contexts, and we conclude by presenting five scientifically supported recommendations for promoting civility in open-science formal and informal context

Society for the improvement of psychological science global engagement task force report

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) is an organization whose mission focuses on bringing together scholars who want to improve methods and practices in psychological science. The organization reaffirmed in June 2020 that “[we] cannot do good science without diverse voices,” and acknowledged that “right now the demographics of SIPS are unrepresentative of the field of psychology, which is in turn unrepresentative of the global population. We have work to do when it comes to better supporting Black scholars and other underrepresented minorities.” The purpose of the Global Engagement Task Force, started in January 2020, was to explore suggestions made after the 2019 Annual Conference, held in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, around inclusion and access for scholars from regions outside of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe (described in the report as “geographically diverse” regions), a task complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest in several task force members' countries of residence. This report outlines several suggestions, specifically around building partnerships with geographically diverse open science organizations; increasing SIPS presence at other, more local events; diversifying remote events; considering geographically diverse annual conference locations; improving membership and financial resources; and surveying open science practitioners from geographically diverse regions.Fil: Steltenpohl, Crystal N.. University of Southern Indiana; Estados UnidosFil: Doble, L. James Montilla. University of the Philippines Diliman; FilipinasFil: Basnight Brown, Dana M.. United States International University; KeniaFil: Dutra, Natália B.. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte; BrasilFil: Belaus, Anabel. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas. - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas; ArgentinaFil: Kung, Chun Chia. National Cheng Kung University; ChinaFil: Onie, Sandersan. Black Dog Institute; AustraliaFil: Seernani, Divya. University Medical Centre; AlemaniaFil: Chen, Sau-Chin. Tzu Chi University; ChinaFil: Burin, Debora Ines. Universidad de Buenos Aires; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Darda, Kohinoor. University of Glasgow; Reino Unid