Access to this full-text is provided by De Gruyter.
Content available from Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Open Access. ©2018 Jessica M. Szczuka and Nicole C. Krämer, publishedby De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License.
Paladyn, J. Behav. Robot. 2018; 9:323–336
Research Article Open Access
Jessica M. Szczuka* and Nicole C. Krämer
Jealousy 4.0? An empirical study on
jealousy-related discomfort of women evoked
by other women and gynoid robots
https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2018-0023
Received February 28, 2018; accepted September 21, 2018
Abstract: While rst empirical studies on sexual aspects
of human-robot interaction mostly focus on male users’
acceptance, there is no empirical research on how fe-
males react to robotic replications of women. To empiri-
cally investigate whether robots can evoke the same kind
of jealousy-related discomfort as do other women, we con-
ducted an online study in which 848 heterosexual fe-
male participants from Germany reacted to the idea that
their partner had sexual intercourse with either another
woman, a human-like female-looking robot, or a machine-
like female-looking robot. The results revealed dimensions
in which the jealousy-related discomfort was higher for fe-
male competitors compared to the robotic ones (e.g., dis-
comfort caused by the idea of sexual intercourse), whereas
in others the robots evoked the same or higher levels
of jealousy-related discomfort (e.g., discomfort caused by
feelings of inadequacy, discomfort caused by shared emo-
tional and time resources). The variance in the discomfort
regarding sexual interactions between one’s partner and
robotic competitors could not be explained by personal
characteristics (such as self-esteem, subjective physical
attractiveness) but rather by technology-related variables
(e.g., negative attitude towards robots, a tendency towards
anthropomorphism) and the attitude towards sexual non-
exclusivity in relationships. The study provides rst em-
pirical insights into a question which is of relevance for a
responsible handling of sexualized technologies.
Keywords: jealousy, human-robot interaction, sex robots
*Corresponding Author: Jessica M. Szczuka: Social Psychology:
Media and Communication, University Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg,
47051, Germany; E-mail: Jessica.szczuka@uni-due.de
Nicole C. Krämer: Social Psychology: Media and Communication,
University Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, 47051, Germany
1Introduction
Although from a basic understanding,robots are machines
that help humans by executing programmed actions, they
are more frequently used in interpersonal contexts [1].
While most robots are built to serve as assistants and com-
panions (e.g., in healthcare or for learning tasks), one
emerging eld of application is the usage of human-like
robots for the fulllment of sexual needs. First companies,
such as Realbotix, are working on making sex robots com-
mercially available by equipping sex dolls both with mo-
tors to make them move and with speakers to create the
impression of communicative ability [2]. The robotic repli-
cations of women have been widely discussed among sci-
entists and journalists alike (e.g., [3–6]). While some see
potential benets for the sex lives of, for instance, people
with disabilities, people suering from social anxieties or
people who do not participate in sexual activities on a reg-
ular basis (e.g., because they do not have a partner) [4, 7],
others warn about potential negative consequences for
both men and women [5, 8] (see section 2.1 for details).
However, the normative discussion about sexualized
robots mostly lacks empirical evidence, and the few em-
pirical studies in the eld of intimate interactions among
humans and robots mainly focus on men’s reactions to
these sexualized robots (e.g., [9]). Research on the ques-
tion of how women perceive these robotic replications
which are specically built to enable sexual intercourse
is lacking even though academia is aware that the tech-
nology of sexualized robots is accompanied with concerns
regarding a responsible handling. In a paper discussing
machine ethics, Bendel asked whether it is “... possible
to be unfaithful to the human love partner with a sex
robot, and can a man or a woman be jealous because
of the robot’s other love aairs?” [10, p. 24]. In this line,
the present study aims to empirically investigate whether
women perceive robots as potential competitors to their re-
lationship in the same way as they perceive other women
to be so. As the degree of human-likeness of robots con-
tributes to the similarity between female-looking robots
324 |Jessica M. Szczuka and Nicole C. Krämer
and women, we additionally investigated dierences be-
tween machine-like female-looking robots and human-
like female-looking robots with respect to their ability to
evoke jealousy-related discomfort. Furthermore, we exam-
ined whether dierent personality traits and attitudes to-
wards technology are associated with the evoked discom-
fort regarding the imagined sexual interaction between a
partner and a robot. The question of whether robots can
evoke jealousy-related discomfort in women is important,
as it reects women’s feelings about mechanical replica-
tions of them. Moreover, answers to this question can pro-
vide rst empirical insights into potential consequences
for owners’ social environment. As such, we wish to con-
tribute to the understanding of human reactions to robots.
While we are interested in learning about human experi-
ences by means of empirical research and do not take a
normative stance, our results should be able to foster re-
sponsible robotics research.
2Literature review
2.1 Representation of sexuality in robots
Based on the current state of technological developments,
robots do not have a biological sex [11]. Scholars like Har-
away have discussed cyborgs as an opportunity to leave
gender-related inequalities behind and create a new form
of identity [12]. However, other researchers have high-
lighted that this ideal might be hard to achieve as long as
humans decide on what robots should look like (e.g., [11,
13]). Søraa noted in this regard that “A robot is perhaps
perceived as a gendered tabula rasa actor in this world of
extreme gender discussion – the genderless robot. How-
ever, this tabula rasa state is not achievable when a robot
is constructed by humans, as the robot’s design is aected
by the human creator’s belief in what gender the robot
‘does’ and ‘does not’ perform.” [11, p. 103]. Given that there
are more males working in computer science, engineering,
and robotics this might be dangerous, especially because
“Most gendered humanoid robots currently being devel-
oped with a realistic human appearance are female.” [14,
p. 53].
Critics of the technology have therefore already
pointed out that this gender bias might lead to replica-
tions of males’ stereotypes of women in terms of robots’ be-
havior and appearance (e.g., wearing tight clothing which
strongly accentuate the breasts and/or buttocks as is al-
ready observable in science ction movies) [8, 14]. Due
to such concerns, Kathleen Richardson founded the Cam-
paign Against Sex Robots [5, 8]. In the policy report for
the campaign (from the website), she stated that sexual-
ized robots can negatively aect the societal standing of fe-
males by enhancing mechanisms of objectication or the
“dehumanization of women in pornography and prostitu-
tion”.
However, human-like cues of machines are important
with respect to their acceptance and usefulness [15] and it
is likely that this will also be the case regarding sexualized
interaction. The developer David Hanson explained that
“if we want to develop robots that would best support us, it
would be better to make them as much as possible a replica
of our shape, average size, and ability” [1, pp. 15-16]. The
consequence of replicating specic visual characteristics
of humans is that robots are equipped with cues that are
societally associated with a specic gender [13]. First pro-
totypes of sexualized robots, for instance by Realbotix [2],
now provide sexuality-related details which would not be
necessary with other robots. In an interview held during
a scientic conference on human-robot interaction (HRI),
Matthew McMullen, CEO of a company working on robots
built to fulll sexual needs, stated that 80% of the so-
called sex dolls (seen as the predecessor of sex robots)
that his company creates represent the female sex and that
80% of the customers are male [16]. Thus, it can be as-
sumed that female-looking sexualized dolls and robots are
mostly used to replicate heterosexual intercourse and/or
heterosexual relationships. Based on the strong represen-
tation of sexuality, we argue that sex robots have the po-
tential to be perceived as a third actor inuencing the dy-
namics of existing long-term relationships between hu-
mans and can therefore pose a threat to these relation-
ships.
2.2 Psychological jealousy models in
the context of human-robot interaction
There is empirical evidence that technology use in terms of
computer-mediated communication (e.g., Facebook) can
enhance jealousy between two people in a romantic rela-
tionship [17]. However, there is no research on whether the
technology itself can be perceived as a source of jealousy.
Therefore, no model exists to describe the psychological
mechanisms involved when a person experiences his/her
partner engaging in sexual intercourse with a machine,
and it is necessary to apply models from human-human in-
teraction to the context of human-robot interaction. In the
present paper, we take the perspective of the person who
fears being betrayed, and therefore adopt the concept of
romantic jealousy. Romantic jealousy is dened as a “com-
Jealousy 4.0? |325
plex of thoughts, emotions, and actions” caused by a re-
alistic or imaginary rival that “threatens the existence or
quality of the romantic relationship” [18, p. 9]. Jealousy in
romantic relationships is an interplay of thoughts, behav-
iors and aects between three parties, i.e. the jealous, the
beloved and the rival. We argue that robots do have the po-
tential to be perceived as a third actor within the dynamics
of a long-term relationship between two people (see sec-
tion 2.1 for details).
The rst component of the romantic jealousy model is
primary appraisal/reappraisal, meaning that the jealous
person reects upon the potential threat to the self and
the relationship of the imagined or actual rival. The role
of imagination in romantic jealousy is worthy of consider-
ation when analyzing the possibility of feeling jealous of a
machine. As robots are not yet everyday interaction part-
ners, people tend to gather their information about robots
from movies [19]. Those movies do not only belong to the
genre of science ction, but moreover, the displayed robots
are mostly animated and/or portrayed by human actors.
Consequently, the presented “machines” do not reect the
state-of-the-art in robotics [20]. However, based on the im-
age of robots provided by mass media people could gain
the impression that robots are not only able to move aw-
lessly and to take part in a uent conversation, but that
they are also programmable and consequently correspond
to every desire of the user. In reality, the development of a
human-like robot, which is capable of not only perform-
ing awless movements, but also reacts towards move-
ments and has basic intelligence, is very complex. This
is why, for the moment, it is only possible to purchase a
robot that is composed of a motionless body combined
with a robotic head that has the capability to communicate
simple sentences and show facial movements [16]. How-
ever, as laypersons usually do not have an overview about
current technological developments [19], their unrealistic
expectations might stimulate jealousy to the extent that
robots are seen as awless, problem-free partners.
The secondary appraisal of the romantic jealousy
model is the evaluation of information the jealous per-
son has about him/herself, about the potential/actual ri-
val, and about possible motives of the partner. One as-
pect of this evaluation is the social comparison with the
rival. On the one hand, the nature of the comparison it-
self (human vs. robot) might lead to a positive evaluation
of the self in terms of not being a mechanical replication.
While technological developments will make it possible
to equip robots with very human-like appearances and
behaviors, it is unlikely that robots built to fulll sexual
needs will be able to perfectly replicate interpersonal com-
munication or aspects of romantic relationships between
humans, such as self-disclosure (for instance, robots can-
not tell a true story about their past or opening up about
problems [20]). On the other hand, the completely con-
trollable appearance and behavior of the robot might lead
to a negative evaluation of the self and of one’s body,
which has been found to decrease self-esteem within hu-
mans [21]. In times of rapid advances in hardware and soft-
ware development, robots can be equipped with numer-
ous behavioral and appearance-related attributes, which
make them customizable and therefore likely to match the
current beauty ideals. Conceivably, this might also con-
tribute to the feeling of jealousy, as studies revealed, for
instance, that people with a low waist-to-hip ratio evoked
more jealousy [22]. Another aspect of the category of sec-
ondary appraisal is the reection of the possible motives
of the partner. If a person’s partner chooses to have sex-
ual intercourse with a robot, the person may reect about
the partner’s sexual norms. Even though technologies are
being increasingly incorporated into sexual activities (e.g.,
the use of a vibrator in sexual interactions), having sexual
relations with a human-shaped robot deviates from statis-
tical sexual norms [23].
The third main category of the romantic jealousy
model comprises the evoked, mostly negative emotions,
such as anger, sadness, envy, or guilt. Although some stud-
ies have investigated the potential of robots to evoke cer-
tain emotions (e.g., embarrassment [24]), most studies in
HRI focus on the evaluation of the robots themselves. To
date, no studies have examined the potential of robots to
evoke emotions connected to jealousy.
The nal main category of the romantic jealousy
model encompasses the coping eects, such as improving
the relationship or demanding commitment. However, as
these are specic reactions to a partner’s indelity and are
more focused on the behaviors of the jealous person, this
category is neglected in the context of the present study.
2.3 Evolutionary perspective on sexual
competitors
When focusing on the person experiencing jealousy, a fur-
ther applicable model has its roots in an evolutionary per-
spective. Although interacting with robots is a new phe-
nomenon, people’s perceptions and anxieties regarding
robots might be inuenced by their biologically rooted ten-
dencies regarding threats to their relationships. Based on
an evolutionary perspective, it can be argued that robots
should not pose a threat to women – due to a robots’ lack
of ability to become pregnant and the resulting shared re-
sources. Although jealousy is not linked to survival per
326 |Jessica M. Szczuka and Nicole C. Krämer
se, it is connected to reproductive success, as it helps to
maintain relationships by motivating behavior that aims
to avert threats [25]. Following the evolutionary perspec-
tive, these threats dier for men and women: While men
fear parental uncertainty if their partner engages in sexual
interactions with other men, women are mainly worried
about shared resources, meaning not only the time, money
and emotions shared with the other partner, but also their
potential ospring [25, 26]. Studies have revealed that
women feel greater discomfort when they think about their
partner becoming emotionally attached to another woman
compared to when they think about their partner only en-
gaging in sexual relations with another woman (e.g., [27]).
In contrast to other women, robots are not able to pose a
threat in terms of potential ospring with a woman’s ro-
mantic partner. Nevertheless, robots might cause discom-
fort regarding shared nancial resources (e.g., the costs
of the robot itself, warranties) and regarding shared emo-
tional resources (e.g., spending time together). Therefore,
robots do, in theory, have the potential to evoke jeal-
ousy even from an evolutionary psychological perspective.
However, the intensity of the usage, meaning whether the
partner spends time and shares emotions with the ma-
chine rather than only using the robot for sexual fulll-
ment, is also likely to contribute to the evoked jealousy.
2.4 Gynoid robots: influence of appearance
on jealousy
Based on sociological denitions of sexual deviance [19], it
can be assumed that the human-like appearance of robots
plays an important role in intimate interactions between
humans and robots. For example, it would be awkward
to engage in sexual interactions with something that re-
sembles a machine rather than a human. For women, it
is conceivable that the visual similarity contributes to the
tendency to compare themselves with the robot. This, in
turn, might aect whether women engage in social com-
parisons with their robotic replications, as studies have
found that women tend to compare their appearance to
that of other women whom they perceive as having sim-
ilar or better body qualities [28]. The jealousy is also in-
uenced by the potential reactions of the partner to the
competitor [18]. Regarding the eect of robots’ appearance
on heterosexual men, it can be speculated that the visual
similarity with women will increase the feeling of sexual
norm adherence, as having sexual intercourse with a non-
living object deviates from sexual norms [19]. Moreover,
more detailed human-like gynoid robots provide visual in-
formation, such as hair or skin, which also signals beauty
and health [26]. This probably also contributes positively
to males’ acceptance of sexualized robots. First empiri-
cal studies demonstrated that, if asked explicitly, men in-
deed evaluated human-like gynoid robots as more attrac-
tive than machine-like gynoid robots [9].
On the other hand, it is also conceivable that sex
robots do not need to look like detailed replications of
humans in order to evoke jealousy-related discomfort in
women. This would be in line with dierent empirical
studies which showed that the use of phallus-shaped sex
toys (vibrators or dildos) caused uncomfortable social situ-
ations in long-term relationships [29, 30]. Fahs and Swank
conducted interviews with twenty women who used vibra-
tors and found out that “women worried that their part-
ners would not automatically feel superior to a machine
and that disclosure of sex toy use would undermine hege-
monic masculinity notions of men’s (inherent) sexual mas-
tery” [30, p. 676]. However, it is unclear whether these
concerns are also conrmed by men themselves, as to
our knowledge, only one study has provided statistics on
men’s acceptance of their female partners’ use of phallus-
shaped sex toys. In the study, 30% of the 1047 men (aged
18-60 years) indicated that it would be intimidating if their
partner used a vibrator [31]. Another - but closely related
- aspect of why the human-like appearance of sex robots
might play a less important role for the jealousy-related
discomfort evoked by sex robots is that sexuality is driven
by fantasy in any case [32]. Accordingly, men, as well as
women, might see something dierent, potentially some-
thing more human, in the obvious machine.
2.5 Hypotheses
Dierences in jealousy-related discomfort based on the
nature of the competitor
The present study aims to investigate whether there are
dierences between the jealousy-related discomfort of fe-
males evoked by other women and that evoked by human-
like and machine-like gynoid robots. As jealousy is a mul-
tifaceted construct, encompassing dierent reasons for
reactions of discomfort (see section 2.2 for details), we
use “jealousy-related discomfort” as an umbrella term
for the various aspects of jealousy we aim to investigate.
Since a) women are familiar with feelings of jealousy to-
wards other women and b) from an evolutionary perspec-
tive, other women pose a threat to their reproductive suc-
cess while robots do not, we assume that women cre-
ate stronger levels of jealousy-related discomfort than do
robots. However, as robots can be built to appear more or
Jealousy 4.0? |327
less human-like, we also investigate potential dierences
between human-like and machine-like gynoid robots. Al-
though the literature suggests that people tend to fan-
tasize during sexual intercourse and can also anthropo-
morphize objects that are obviously non-living entities
(see section 2.3 for details), it can be assumed that the
higher comparability between human-like gynoid robots
and women will lead to higher levels of jealousy-related
discomfort towards human-like compared to machine-like
gynoid robots. Therefore, we propose the following hy-
pothesis:
H1: The nature of the competitor has an inuence on
the evoked jealousy-related discomfort of women: Other
women evoke the highest level of jealousy-related discom-
fort (in its dierent aspects), followed by human-like gy-
noid robots, while machine-like gynoid robots evoke the
lowest level of jealousy-related discomfort.
Influence of personal characteristics and
technology-related variables on discomfort regarding
sexual interaction with a robot
We further aimed to examine whether personal character-
istics or attitudes towards technology can explain the vari-
ance in the discomfort evoked by the imagined sexualcon-
tact between one’s partner and a female-looking robot.
With regard to personal characteristics, social com-
parison is, according to the literature, a part of jealousy,
which in turn is related to the personal characteristics of
self-esteem and subjective physical attractiveness [21, 22].
Therefore, both variables were included in the present
study as potential predictors for the discomfort evoked by
the imagined sexual interaction with a robot. Moreover,
the attitude towards non-exclusivity in romantic relation-
ships is of interest, as it describes whether participants
will use the same standard for robots which they would
apply to a human partner.
Furthermore, attitudes towards technology might also
explain why women become jealous of a robot. In this re-
gard, negative attitudes towards robots and the tendency
to anthropomorphize technology might be important [33].
Robots are machines, and as there are already some tech-
nological devices which can be incorporated into sexual
interactions (e.g., vibrators), it can be assumed that the
openness to technology in sexual interactions is a fur-
ther important variable regarding the jealousy evoked by
robots. Based on these assumptions, we ask:
RQ1: How much of the variance in the jealousy-related
discomfort caused by the partner’s sexual interaction with
a robot can be explained by women’s personal charac-
teristics (self-esteem, subjective physical appearance, at-
titude towards non-exclusivity) and by attitudes towards
technology (negative attitudes towards robots, tendency
towards anthropomorphism, and openness to technology
in sexual interactions)?
3Method
3.1 Participants and procedure
To investigate whether there are dierences in the
jealousy-related discomfort evoked when confronted with
the idea that one’s partner engages in sexual interactions
with either another woman, a human-like gynoid robot or
a machine-like gynoid robot, a total of 848 German hetero-
sexual women aged 18-63 years (M= 25.43, SD = 6.51) were
recruited to participate in an online survey. One of the ad-
vantages of a web-based experiment lies in the larger sam-
ple size, which positively inuences the external validity
of the results [34]. Moreover, as there is no convincing sex
robot available yet which might have been presented to the
participants as a potential competitor, there was no reason
to invite the participants to the laboratory. 619 (73%) of the
848 participants indicated being in a long-term relation-
ship at the time of the study. Inclusion criteria were female
gender, age 18 or over, and being heterosexual; these were
explained on the front page of the survey and needed to be
conrmed before continuing the survey. Participation was
voluntary, and participants were free to exit the question-
naire at any time. Participants were recruited nationwide
via postings in various Facebook groups, and they had the
chance to win a gift certicate.
To avoid carry-over eects between the reactions to
the dierent groups of competitors, the study employed
a between-subjects design with three groups: In the rst
group, participants were asked to imagine that their part-
ner had sex with another woman (N= 287); in the sec-
ond group, participants were asked to imagine that their
partner had sex with a female-looking human-like gy-
noid robot (N= 287); and in the third group, participants
were asked to imagine that their partner had sex with a
machine-like gynoid robot (N= 274). The procedure was
similar across the groups. The women were rst asked to
answer some questions about themselves, before partic-
ipating in the thought experiment, in which they imag-
ined that they had found out that their partner had sex
with either another woman, a human-like gynoid robot,
or a machine-like gynoid robot. Thought experiments are
a frequently used method in jealousy research (e.g., [27]).
328 |Jessica M. Szczuka and Nicole C. Krämer
To ensure the comparability of the groups, all participants
were shown a picture of four potential competitors match-
ing their group (e.g., a picture showing four human-like
gynoid sex robots). Examples from each stimuli group
are provided in Figure 1. The displayed women as well
the human-like robots were only covered by underwear to
make it easier for the participants to imagine a sexualized
interaction (especially in contrast to other clothing, e.g.,
business clothing). The machine-like robots did not wear
any underwear because it would not make sense to cover
up mechanical parts as they lack human-like details such
as skin. By showing four dierent stimuli in each category,
it was ensured that all participants had the same idea of
the possible threat they had to think about. Moreover, ef-
fects did not rely merely on participants’ imagination but
were also caused by the specic appearance of a single
stimulus. There was one dierence between the question-
naires of the other-woman group and the two robot com-
petitor groups: The participants in the robot competitor
groups had to watch a short video clip showing state-of-
the-art robots in order to familiarize them with the appear-
ance and abilities of robots (e.g., stand, walk, talk, display
nonverbal cues), as most people’s understanding of robots
is based on movies [19].
Figure 1: Examples of the stimulus material of the groups: women
(left), human-like gynoid robots (middle), machine-like gynoid
robots (right).
After completing the survey, participants were in-
formed about the purpose of the study and received the
contact details of the principal investigator, whom they
were encouraged to contact if they had any additional
comments or questions. To meet the standards of ethical
acceptability of psychological research, the study was ap-
proved by the university’s ethics committee prior to data
collection.
3.2 Measurements
In the following, it is explained how jealousy, attitudes to-
wards technology, and personal characteristics were mea-
sured. All questions were answered on a ve-point Lik-
ert scale ranging from 1 = disagree strongly to 5 = agree
strongly.
3.2.1 Jealousy-related discomfort
As explained above, jealousy is a complex, multidimen-
sional construct, which is accompanied by feelings of in-
competence, weakness, and discomfort [18]. Therefore, we
aimed to cover dierent aspects of jealousy-related dis-
comfort based on the literature review. In the literature,
we found dierent reasons for jealousy, dened as the dis-
comfort based on shared resources, such as shared sexual
resources, nancial resources, and emotional resources
(e.g., spending time together, sharing attention). Sharing
the resources of one’s partner with another person con-
stitutes a threat to the exclusivity of a romantic relation-
ship [18, 25]. Therefore, we included this subdimension of
jealousy in the present study. Moreover, we found several
outcomes, such as negative emotional consequences and
the comparison between the jealous person and the oppo-
nent, which we also included in the measurement [18, 22,
25, 26, 28].
To our knowledge, there was no previously existing
scale which covers all of these aspects and is also suit-
able to be adapted to the purpose of the present study.
Therefore, it was necessary to develop a measure that not
only evaluates dierent important aspects of jealousy but
that can also be used for both the female and the robotic
competitors. We developed a scale comprising a total of 30
items. To reduce the number of items and to examine the
structure of the scale, we conducted an exploratory fac-
tor analysis with principal component analysis and vari-
max rotation, followed by Horn’s parallel analysis. This
yielded three main factors based on the eigenvalue crite-
ria. An additional exploratory factor analysis with prin-
cipal axis analysis and promax rotation revealed the fac-
tor loadings for each item. All items with factor loadings
lower than .50 and/or parallel loadings higher than .20
were excluded from the analysis [35]. Based on the theoret-
ical background of some items, we conducted additional
exploratory factor analyses to reveal potential subdimen-
sions in the factors “sharing of resources” and “personal
negative consequences”. All subdimensions are explained
in the following. Please note that the remarks in square
Jealousy 4.0? |329
brackets indicate the dierent versions of the question-
naire.
3.2.2 Jealousy-related discomfort: discomfort regarding
sexual contact (Factor 1)
This aspect refers to the discomfort caused by the sex-
ual interaction of one’s partner with the competitors and
the violation of sexual norms (regarding a robotic oppo-
nent [23]). The exploratory factor analysis for the items
yielded a factor with three items (e.g., “I would feel uneasy
if my partner preferred to participate in certain sexual ac-
tivities with [another woman/ a human-like gynoid robot/
a machine-like gynoid robot] rather than with me” or "It
would bother me to know that my partner fullls some of
his sexual needs with [another woman/ a human-like gy-
noid robot/ a machine-like gynoid robot]”). The scale had
an internal consistency of α=. 80.
3.2.3 Jealousy-related discomfort: sharing of resources
(Factor 2)
The additional exploratory factor analysis revealed that
the six items could be assigned to two subdimensions; a)
the discomfort based on sharing emotional and time re-
sources and b) the discomfort based on sharing nancial
resources. The rst subscale consists of four items, such as
“It would bother me if my partner fell asleep with [another
woman/ a human-like gynoid robot/ a machine-like gy-
noid robot] or “It would bother me to know that my partner
spends time with [another woman/ a human-like gynoid
robot/ a machine-like gynoid robot]”. The scale had an in-
ternal consistency of α=. 66. The second subscale is com-
posed of two items and had an internal consistency of α=.
71. An example item is: “It would bother me to know that
my partner spend money on [another woman/a human-
like gynoid robot/a machine-like gynoid robot]”.
3.2.4 Jealousy-related discomfort: personal negative
consequences (Factor 3)
Jealousy causes negative emotions and negative evalua-
tions of the self in comparison to the competitor [18]. The
exploratory factor analysis revealed that the scale mea-
suring the negative consequences for one’s partner having
sexual interactions with another woman or a robot could
be divided into two subdimensions: the feeling of inad-
equacy and the evoked negative emotions. The rst sub-
scale, measuring the feeling inadequacy as a consequence
of indelity with another woman or a robot and the result-
ing negative self-evaluation, consists of the three items “If
my partner had sex with [another woman/a human-like
gynoid robot/a machine-like gynoid robot], I would ask
myself whether I’m attractive enough”, “I would blame my-
self if my partner had sex with [another woman/a human-
like gynoid robot/a machine-like gynoid robot]” or “If my
partner had sex with [another woman/a human-like gy-
noid robot/a machine-like gynoid robot], I would feel inad-
equate and ask myself what he sees in [her/it].” The Cron-
bach’s alpha was α=. 77. The second subscale measures
negative emotions evoked by the thought of one’s part-
ner having sexual interactions with another woman or a
robot. It comprises seven items, such as “I would feel hurt
if my partner had sex with [another woman/a human-like
gynoid robot/a machine-like gynoid robot]” or “I would
be angry if my partner had sex with [another woman/a
human-like gynoid robot/a machine-like gynoid robot]”.
The internal consistency was α=. 94.
3.2.5 Self-esteem (personal characteristic)
The German version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
was used to assess the individual level of self-esteem [36].
The scale comprises ten items (e.g., “I feel that I have a
number of good qualities” or “I have a positive attitude to-
wards myself”). The internal consistency was α= .91.
3.2.6 Physical attractiveness (personal characteristic)
The Physical Attractiveness Subscale of the Physical Self-
Concept scale by Stiller, Würth, and Alfermann was used
to measure participants’ subjective physical attractive-
ness [37]. The subscale consists of 10 items, such as “I feel
condent in my body” or “I am proud of my body”, and
had an internal consistency of α=. 91.
3.2.7 Sexual non-exclusivity (personal characteristic)
The attitude towards sexual exclusivity in long-term rela-
tionships was assessed using a translated version of the
sexual non-exclusivity subscale of the Relationship Issue
Scale by Boekhout [38].The scale had an internal consis-
tency of α=. 85 and is composed of seven items, such as
“Having sex with someone other than one’s primary part-
ner is a threat to relationship intimacy/stability” or “I con-
330 |Jessica M. Szczuka and Nicole C. Krämer
sider it as indelity if one has sex with somebody else than
one’s primary partner”.
3.2.8 Negative attitudes towards robots (attitude
towards technology)
The German version of the Negative Attitudes towards
Robots Scale by Nomura, Suzuki, Kanda, and Kato was
used to measure whether participants have a negative
mindset regarding robots [33]. The scale consists of 14
items (e.g., “I would feel paranoid talking with a robot” or
“I would feel uneasy if robots had real feelings”) and had
an internal consistency of α=. 79.
3.2.9 Anthropomorphism (attitude towards technology)
The “tendency to ascribe human characteristics to non-
human objects” was measured by nine items (e.g., “I can
see why people name their cars or computers” or “I have
experienced that some of my electronical devices (e.g.,
smartphone or computer) refused to cooperate.”), which
were derived from the German version of the Anthropo-
morphism Questionnaire by Neave, Jackson, Saxton, and
Hönekopp [39, p. 214]. The internal consistency was α= .71.
3.2.10 Openness to technology in sexual interactions
(attitude towards technology)
We developed a scale to measure how open-minded the
participants were regarding the usage of technology in sex-
ual interactions. For this purpose, we searched for dier-
ent new sexualized technologies in dierent online stores.
The ve items encompass dierent scenarios with techno-
logical sex toys, such as “The thought of using a smart-
phone application to control sex toys is exciting for me”
or “If I could, I would watch virtual reality porn together
with my partner”. The internal consistency was α= 67.
4Results
4.1 Dierences in women’s jealousy-related
discomfort caused by other women and
by female-looking robots (H1)
To examine potential dierences in the dierent dimen-
sions of jealousy-related discomfort caused by either an-
other woman or by robots, a MANOVA was conducted.
The results revealed a statistically signicant dierence in
the dierent aspects of jealousy-related discomfort based
on the nature of the competitor (human, human-like gy-
noid robot or machine-like gynoid robot) (F(10, 1682) =
12.03, p<.001, Wilks’ Λ= .87, partial η2= .07). The pairwise
comparisons revealed that the discomfort caused by the
idea of the partner’s sexual intercourse with a competitor,
the discomfort caused by shared nancial resources, and
the negative emotional consequences were higher for a fe-
male competitor compared to the robotic competitors. The
evoked jealousy-related discomfort did not dier between
the human-like gynoid robot and the machine-like gynoid
robot. The opposite was the case for shared emotional re-
sources: Here, the robots evoked a higher level of discom-
fort than the women. The only aspect of jealousy-related
discomfort on which the nature of the competitor had no
signicant eect was the feeling of inadequacy (p= .568).
Table 1 shows all means and signicant dierences.
4.2 Explained variance in discomfort caused
by sexual interaction with a robot (RQ1)
To determine how much of the variance in the jealousy-
related discomfort based on sexual interactions with a
robot can be explained by personal characteristics or the
attitude towards technology, a hierarchical multiple re-
gression analysis was computed. Since the results of H1
revealed no signicant dierence between the machine-
like and the human-like gynoid robot regarding the evoked
discomfort, the data of both groups were entered into the
regression. The personal characteristics self-esteem, sub-
jective physical attractiveness, and attitude towards non-
exclusivity were inserted in the rst block. The negative at-
titude towards robots, the tendency to anthropomorphize,
and the openness to the usage of technology in sexual in-
teractions were combined in the second block, presenting
the technology-related variables. The rst block explained
25.2% of the variance (F(3,557) = 62.54, p<.001), and the
second block explained an additional 6.1% (F(6,554) =
42.11, p<.001). The coecients of the full model revealed
that only the attitude towards sexual non-exclusivity in re-
lationships (β= -.42, p<.001), the negative attitude to-
wards robots (β= .19, p<.001), and the openness to tech-
nology (β= -.15, p<.001) emerged as signicant predic-
tors of the discomfort caused by the partner’s sexual inter-
action with a robot. Thus, the jealousy-related discomfort
caused by an imagined sexual interaction with robots can
be partly explained by these three factors.
Jealousy 4.0? |331
Table 1: Means and signicant dierences of the jealousy aspects.
Note. Means in column-sharing subscripts are signicantly dierent from each other.
Aspect of jealousy Woman Human-like
gynoid
Machine-like
gynoid
Discomfort caused by idea of
sexual intercourse
M4.63a,b,c4.38a,b4.39a,c
SD 0.79 0.87 0.87
Discomfort caused by shared
emotional and time resources
M4.03a,b,c4.22a,b4.23a,c
SD 0.82 0.86 0.76
Discomfort caused by shared
nancial resources
M4.52a,b,c4.27a,b4.23a,c
SD 0.75 0.99 1.04
Feeling of inadequacy
M3.80 3.71 3.72
SD 1.06 1.13 1.10
Negative emotional
consequences
M4.59a,b,c4.01a,b4.19a,c
SD 0.86 1.06 0.96
5Discussion
5.1 Dierences in jealousy-related
discomfort caused by women and
female-looking robots
The results of the present study showed that the discom-
fort caused by sexual interactions of women’s long-term
partner was higher in the case of a female competitor than
in the case of robotic competitors. On the one hand, this
nding may be attributable to the fact that the thought
of sexual interactions between one’s partner and robots
might still be too abstract. On the other hand, it is con-
ceivable that women equate sexual interactions with sex
robots with “meaningless one-night stands” especially as
it seems unlikely that their partner will engage in more
than sex (e.g., conversations about feelings). According to
Buss, one-night stands are easier for women to get over
compared to relationships with other women. In such rela-
tionships, it is more likely that the partner will reduce the
resources which were originally exclusive [25]. The result,
moreover, potentially underlines the importance of the bi-
ological background of the competitors.
It is conceivable that the imagined sexual interaction
with a woman caused more discomfort than the imag-
ined sexual interaction with a robot because there is no
chance that the robots could produce ospring, which,
from an evolutionary psychological perspective, would be
the main reason for jealousy among humans as it comes
along with shared resources (e.g., time resources, emo-
tional, nancial resources) [26].
In this respect, additional qualitative research needs
to be conducted to gain insights into women’s understand-
ing of sexualized robots. Moreover, further research needs
to answer the question whether sexual interactions with
robots are comparable to sexual interactions with other
human beings or more strongly comparable to sexual in-
teractions with sex toys (e.g., vibrators).
Contrary to our prediction, the discomfort caused by
shared emotional and time resources was higher for both
robotic conditions than for the female competitor. It is
known that women suer more if their partner has an
emotional attachment to another woman compared to an
emotionally meaningless one-night stand [27, 37]. If the
partner had an emotional attachment to a female-looking
robot, this would not only mean that the partner chooses
another interaction partner to share his thoughts and at-
tention with, but also that he chooses a robotic replication
over the woman herself. While sex robots are built for sex-
ual interactions, the comparison of the woman to a robot
regarding the ability to share emotions and time could lead
to a more negative evaluation of the self (for instance that
332 |Jessica M. Szczuka and Nicole C. Krämer
the machine is a better listener) or of the partner. Addition-
ally, if a woman’s partner is sharing emotional and time
resources with a non-living human-like entity, she may
gain the impression that her partner deviates from social
norms.
The discomfort caused by shared nancial resources
was higher with regard to women than the robotic com-
petitors, which might be caused by their higher similarity.
While nancial resources used on another woman could
be equally spent on a man’s own partner (e.g., buying the
same gifts for the female opponent), the robot would re-
quire the man to spend money on things like a warranty.
The negative emotional consequences (e.g., the feel-
ings of anger or sadness) were higher regarding the female
opponents compared to the robotic opponents. It is pos-
sible that the participants in the robotic conditions could
not imagine feeling strong emotions like anger towards a
machine, whereas the women in the female opponent con-
dition were familiar with the concept of other women evok-
ing such emotions. However, more research needs to be
conducted to understand the underlying processes.
Surprisingly, the results showed that robots can evoke
the same feeling of inadequacy that can be evoked by
other women. This is of special interest, as it was the only
subdimension to focus on how the participants perceived
themselves after imagining their partner having sexual in-
teractions with another woman or a robot. Evidently, the
women did not see themselves as having advantages over
their robotic replications, and were therefore as aected
by the robots as they were by the imagined contact of their
partner with other women. While women need to gather
some information on their human competitor and reect
on dimensions in which the opponent may have an ad-
vantage [18], robots can be built and programmed to per-
fectly match the partner’s preferences in terms of behavior
and appearance. Moreover, people’s beliefs about robots
are strongly inuenced by movies [19], in which female-
looking robots not only have emotional intelligence (e.g.,
Ex Machina) but are also built to satisfy sexual needs (e.g.,
Westworld) [40, 41]. It is possible that a broader technolog-
ical understanding and a new form of technology-related
self-condence might be benecial for women in order
to better comprehend the positive and negative potential
of upcoming technological developments, such as sexu-
alized robots. Such reinforcement of women who under-
stand, work on, and shape technological developments is
in line with the concept of cyberfeminism [42, 43]. One may
intuitively argue that sexualized robots particularly con-
tradict the concept of cyberfeminism, because they rein-
force the male dominance in the creation of technology
that is made by and for male users (especially with re-
gard to female-looking robots) and underline dierences
between what men and women want [44]. However, robots
do have the potential to help people act out their sexual
preferences regardless of societal boundaries of gender or
norms. In this respect, female developers will also be im-
portant in order to create sexualized technologies which
respect and represent female needs.
Overall, it needs to be highlighted that, according
to our ndings, the design of a robot as either human-
like or machine-like was not as important as assumed.
Although the human-like robots provided more and de-
tailed human-like visual cues, which could have led to a
higher comparability between the women and the robot,
the results showed that the female body shape of a robotic
competitor is sucient to trigger feelings of discomfort in
women. However, it might be assumed that the processes
underlying the discomfort diered between the human-
like and machine-like robots. For instance, the appearance
of the machine-like gynoid robots might have caused dis-
comfort because this would signify that the partner would
be violating sexual norms. Qualitative research also needs
to be conducted in this regard to determine how women
perceive the threat of dierent female-looking robots.
One implication of these ndings is that robots do
have the potential to negatively aect the owner’s roman-
tic relationship with another human being. Scientists have
made various attempts to dene rules or guidelines that
would lead to ethical or responsible actions of robots [45,
46]. Some of these approaches include the social environ-
ment as an important inuence on this evaluation. For in-
stance, Gips focused on the potential consequences of an
action as an elaborative principle. He stated: “Thus to rea-
son ethically along consequentialist lines a robot would
need to generate a list of possible actions and then eval-
uate the situation caused by each action according to the
sum of good or bad caused to persons by the action. The
robot would select the action that causes the greatest good
in the world.” [47, pp. 246-247]. Based on the present nd-
ings, this would mean that (according to their computa-
tional abilities), in order to act ethically, sex robots would
also need to elaborate on whether a sexual interaction
would cause negative consequences for the owner and his
or her social environment. Fullling the sexual needs of
the owner might not only psychologically hurt the owner’s
partner but might also lead to negative consequences for
the owner him/herself, if the intimate interaction causes
serious relationship issues with the human partner. De-
signers of robots that are intended to fulll sexual needs
should therefore be aware that by following the imple-
mented behavior, robots can cause negative social conse-
Jealousy 4.0? |333
quences for users in long-term relationships with other hu-
mans.
5.2 Explained variance in discomfort caused
by sexual interaction with a robot (RQ1)
The attitude towards non-exclusivity was the only per-
sonal characteristic that explained variance in the dis-
comfort caused by the partner’s sexual interaction with
a robot. At the same time, it was the strongest signicant
predictor of all included variables. On the one hand, this is
contrary to our prediction, as we assumed that self-esteem
and subjective physical attractiveness would also con-
tribute to the feeling of discomfort when a partner chooses
to have sexual interaction with a robot over the actual part-
ner. Nevertheless, we specically included this variable
to demonstrate that values of long-term relationships can
also be transferred to the context of HRI. More research is
necessary to dene indelity with a robot. Moreover, the
results showed that the measurement of negative attitudes
towards robots, which is frequently used in HRI research,
also plays a role in sexual interactions with robots. It is
plausible that women react with more discomfort in re-
sponse to the idea of their partner having sexual interac-
tions with a robot if they have a negative attitude towards
robots in general. The nding is moreover in line with
Szczuka and Krämer who revealed that the negative atti-
tude towards robots is a negative predictor of how sexually
attractive robots are perceived [9]. The results thereforeun-
derline the importance of this variable regarding sexual-
ized interactions with human-shaped machines. The anal-
ysis also demonstrated that the more women interact with
technology in intimate situations, the less discomfort they
feel when imagining their partner having sexual interac-
tions with a robot. This again seems plausible, as robots
can also be categorized as technology. However, it is pos-
sible that the human shape of this technology contributed
to its small explanatory value, as people are not yet used
to this type of technology. Even though the predictor was
not as strong, this variable might be of interest for future
research, as technology and its meaning will change over
time [19]. The growing acceptance of technology in sexual
interactions can also be observed in the increasing num-
ber of commercially available electronic devices, ranging
from vibrators that can be controlled via smartphone ap-
plications to virtual reality porn [48, 49].
5.3 Limitations and future studies
As the present study attempted to cover new ground
in the research of sexual interactions with robots, it
is not without limitations. It could be argued that the
results of the thought experiment are not comparable
with real experiences. Presumably, many of the women
who took part in the study were thinking about po-
tential robotic competitors for the rst time. The idea
of sexual interactions with robots may therefore have
been strongly inuenced by their previous knowledge
of robots, which is often heavily inuenced by movies,
such as Ex Machina [40] (https://www.imdb.com/title/
tt0470752/) or Blade Runner [50] (https://www.imdb.com/
title/tt0083658/?ref_=nv_sr_2). The human-like gynoid
robots depicted in these movies have abilities in terms of
movement, appearance, and moral judgments which will
not realistically be implemented in real robots within the
next few years [19]. However, we aimed to counterbalance
this limitation by showing the participants videos about
the ability of state-of-the-art robots (see method section
for details). Moreover, we did not incorporate a trait jeal-
ousy scale to control for the extent to which the partici-
pants tend to be jealous in general.
The study represents a rst attempt to empirically in-
vestigate the inuence which sex robots may have on long-
term relationships. To gain a broader understanding of
jealousy in interactions between humans and machines,
future research needs to a) dene cheating in the context
of human-robot interaction, b) determine the inuence of
the customization of the robots’ appearance and behav-
ior on the jealousy they might evoke, and c) explore the
changing attitudes towards technologies which are used
in sexual interactions.
It is noteworthy that the present study did not nd dif-
ferences in the jealousy and discomfort caused by the idea
of a partner having sexual interactions with a human-like
or a machine-like robot. This suggests that gynoid robots
do not even need to look like exact replications of humans
to cause negative eects regarding the relationship and the
self. Similar results were also found in men with regard to
vibrators [30]. Future studies should therefore incorporate
even less human-like technologies (e.g., articial vagina/
eshlight) to gain more knowledge on the importance of
human-like visual cues for jealousy in human-machine in-
teractions.
Future studies should also incorporate the cultural
background of the participants as one potentially impor-
tant determinant of the reactions to robotic romantic com-
petitors. As Asian countries, such as Japan, were found to
have incorporated robots more strongly into their culture,
334 |Jessica M. Szczuka and Nicole C. Krämer
dierent studies aimed to investigate the inuence of cul-
ture on reactions towards robots [51, 52]. Thus, intercul-
tural empirical research is needed to determine whether
cultural background will enhance or reduce jealousy-
related discomfort as a reaction to robotic romantic com-
petitors.
As female-looking robots might not only be perceived
as rivals, but may also have the potential to be socially ac-
cepted as companions, it would be worthwhile for future
research to investigate a broader range of women’s emo-
tional reactions beyond jealousy-related discomfort.
Furthermore, future studies on jealousy in the con-
text of human-robot interaction should integrate a wider
range of gender and sexuality. This would include not
only homosexual women and their reactions to sexual-
ized female-looking robots but also jealousy-related reac-
tions of men towards female- and male-looking sexualized
robots. Based on research showing that some heterosexual
men are intimidated by the thought of their female partner
using a vibrator, it is realistic to assume that robots also
have the potential to evoke reactions of jealousy in hetero-
sexual males [30].
It should also be mentioned that the present study
was conducted in Germany, which as a Central European
county was found to have a more open-minded attitude to-
wards sexuality (and related concepts like sexual equality)
compared to other countries (e.g., the United States) [53,
54]. A study found that women in the United States and in
Germany showed similar responses when asked whether
emotional or sexual indelity would distress them more,
which indicates that these dierent countries do have
similar responses towards threats to long-term relation-
ships [54]. However, it is conceivable that especially the
combination of attitudes towards sexuality (or indelity
and jealousy, respectively) and attitudes towards technol-
ogy (in this case towards robots) may strongly depend
on cultural inuences. Moreover, this interaction may be
substantially inuenced by gender, as studies found that
men and women dier in terms of their attitudes towards
both technology and sexuality (e.g., [44, 54]). Intercultural
studies with an emphasis on gender would therefore con-
tribute to a better understanding of the acceptance of sex-
ualized robots.
6Conclusion
The present study investigated whether women react with
the same level of jealousy towards the idea of their partner
having sexual interactions with a (human-like or machine-
like) gynoid robot as they would when imagining their
partner having sexual interactions with another woman.
We assumed that, due to the higher comparability and the
greater likelihood of past experiences of other women as
sexual competitors, women would feel more discomfort
and jealousy in response to another woman. However, it
seems not sucient to state that women in general evoke
stronger jealousy-related discomfort than robots. On the
contrary, it depends on the subdimension of jealousy. The
jealousy-related discomfort was higher for female com-
petitors compared to the robotic ones, for instance re-
garding the discomfort caused by the idea of sexual in-
tercourse, whereas in other dimensions the robots evoked
the same or higher levels of jealousy-related discomfort,
such as the discomfort caused by negative self-evaluations
in comparison to the competitor or discomfort caused by
shared emotional and time resources. Contrary to our ex-
pectation, the factors of similarity and comparability did
not lead to dierences between human-like and machine-
like gynoid robots in terms of the dierent subdimensions
of jealousy-related discomfort. It is possible that basic so-
cial cues are sucient to trigger social scripts known from
humans-human interactions, which, in turn, result in so-
cial comparison and jealousy-related discomfort.
Greater knowledge about the underlying processes of
machines could help women to better evaluate the abili-
ties of robots. Moreover, an enhanced willingness to cre-
ate and shape sexualized technologies of the near future
could positively aect females’ self-condence, as such in-
ventions could more strongly respect and represent their
needs in terms of both sexuality and societal standing.
Most importantly, our ndings should spark further
discussion on ethical aspects of human-robot interaction
and hopefully result in social and sexual norms to guide
responsible robotics developments which will not nega-
tively impact long-term relationships and women’s self-
evaluation.
References
[1] Y. Bar-Cohen, D. T. Hanson, The coming robot revolution: Ex-
pectations and fears about emerging intelligent, humanlike ma-
chines, Springer, 2009
[2] Realbotix, https://realbotix.com/Harmony
[3] M. Reisz, The sexbots are coming – Scholars reflect on ethics
and mechanics of a possible ‘sex tech’ future, Times Higher Edu-
cation, 23 December 2016, https://www.timeshighereducation.
com/news/sexbots-are-coming
[4] D. Levy, Love & sex with robots: The evolution of human-robot
relationships, HarperCollins, 2007
Jealousy 4.0? |335
[5] K. Richardson, The asymmetrical ’relationship’: parallels be-
tween prostitution and the development of sex robots, ACM
SIGCAS Computers and Society, 2016, 45(3), 290–293, https:
//doi.org/10.1145/2874239.2874281
[6] N. Sharkey, A. van Wynsberghe, S. Robbins, E. Hancock,
Foundation for responsible robotics report: Our sexual future
with robots, https://responsiblerobotics.org/2017/07/05/frr-
report-our-sexual-future-with- robots/
[7] M. Scheutz, T. Arnold, Are we ready for sex robots?, HRI’16: The
Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot
Interaction (2016, Christchurch, New Zealand), IEEE, 2016, 351–
358, https://doi.org/10.1109%2Fhri.2016.7451772
[8] K. Richardson, Policy report: Sex dolls and sex robots
– A serious problem for women, men & society, https:
//campaignagainstsexrobots.org/2018/05/08/policy-report-
sex-dolls-and- sex-robots- a-serious- problem-for- women-
men-society/
[9] J. Szczuka, N. Krämer, Not only the lonely – How men explicitly
and implicitly evaluate the attractiveness of sex robots in com-
parison to the attractiveness of women, and personal charac-
teristics influencing this evaluation, Multimodal Technologies
Interaction/ Special Issue Love and Sex with Robots, 2017, 1(1),
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti1010003
[10] O. Bendel, Sex robots from the perspective of machine ethics,
In: A. D. Cheok, K. Devlin, D. Levy (Eds.), Love and Sex with
robots: Second International Conference 2016, Springer, 2017,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 57738-8_2
[11] R. A. Søraa, Mechanical genders: How do humans gender
robots?, Gender, Technology and Development, 2017, 21, 99–
115, https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2017.1385320
[12] D. Haraway, A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and
socialist feminism in the 1980s, In: L. Nicholson (Ed.), Femi-
nism/Postmodernism, Taylor and Francis, 2013
[13] J. Robertson, Gendering humanoid robots: Robo-sexism in
Japan, Body & Society, 2010, 16(2), 1–36, https://doi.org/10.
1177/1357034x10364767
[14] S. Alesich, M. Rigby, Gendered robots: Implications for our hu-
manoid future, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 2017,
36(2), 50-59, https://doi.org/10.1109/mts.2017.2696598
[15] J. Fink, Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of
robots and human-robot interaction, In: S. S. Ge, O. Khatib, J.-J.
Cabibihan, R. Simmons, M.-A. Williams (Eds.), Social robotics:
4th International Conference, ICSR 2012, Chengdu, China, 2012,
Springer, 2012, 199–208, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 642-
34103-8_20
[16] C. Bartneck, M. McMullen, Interacting with anatomically com-
plete robots, In: T. Kanda, S. ˆ
Sabanović, G. Homan, A. Tapus
(Eds.), HRI’18: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human Robot Interaction, 2018, Chicago, Asso-
ciation for Computing Machinery, 2018
[17] R. A. Elphinston, P. Noller, Time to face it! Facebook intru-
sion and the implications for romantic jealousy and relation-
ship satisfaction, Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Net-
working, 2011, 14(11), 631–635, https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.
2010.0318
[18] G. L. White, P. E. Mullen, Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical
strategies, Guilford Press, 1989
[19] A. Weiss, J. Igelsböck, D. Wurhofer, M. Tscheligi, Looking for-
ward to a “robotic society”?, International Journal of Social
Robotics, 2011, 3(2), 111–123, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-
010-0076- 5
[20] J. Rosén, K. Richardson, J. Lindblom, E. Billing, The robot illu-
sion: facts and ction, In: Proceedings of Workshop in Explain-
able Robotics System (HRI), 2018
[21] L. Festinger, A theory of social comparison processes, Hu-
man Relations, 1954, 7(2), 117–140, https://doi.org/10.1177/
001872675400700202
[22] P. Dijkstra, B. P. Buunk, Sex dierences in the jealousy-evoking
nature of a rival’s body build, Evolution and Human Behavior,
2001, 22(5), 335–341, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-5138(01)
00070-8
[23] M. G. F. Worthen, Sexual deviance and society: A sociological
approach, Routledge, 2016
[24] C. Bartneck, T. Bleeker, J. Bun, P. Fens, L. Riet, The influence
of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment
when interacting with robots, Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral
Robotics, 2010, 1(2), 109-115, https://doi.org/10.2478/s13230-
010-0011- 3
[25] D. M. Buss, Sexual jealousy, Psychological Topics, 2013, 22,
155–182
[26] D. M. Buss, Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the
mind, 5th ed., Routledge, 1999
[27] D. M. Buss, R. J. Larsen, D. Westen, J. Semmelroth, Sex dif-
ferences in jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology,
Psychological Science, 1998, 3(4), 251–256, https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x
[28] S. L. Franzoi, K. Vasquez, E. Sparapani, K. Frost, J. Martin,
M. Aebly, Exploring body comparison tendencies, Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 2011, 36(1), 99–109, https://doi.org/10.
1177/0361684311427028
[29] B. S. Marcus, Changes in a woman’s sexual experience and ex-
pectations following the introduction of electric vibrator assis-
tance, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2011, 8(12), 3398–3406,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02132.x
[30] B. Fahs, E. Swank, Adventures with the “Plastic Man”: Sex toys,
compulsory heterosexuality, and the politics of women’s sex-
ual pleasure, Sexuality & Culture, 2013, 17(4), 666–685, https:
//doi.org/10.1007/s12119-013-9167- 4
[31] D. Herbenick, M. Reece, V. Schick, K. N. Jozkowski, S. E. Middel-
stadt, S. A. Sanders, et al., Beliefs about women’s vibrator use:
Results from a nationally representative probability survey in
the United States, Journal of sex & marital therapy, 2011, 37(5),
329–345, https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623x.2011.606745
[32] H. Leitenberg, K. Henning, Sexual fantasy, Psychological Bul-
letin, 1995, 117(3), 469–496, https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-
2909.117.3.469
[33] T. Nomura, T. Suzuki, T. Kanda, K. Kato, Measurement of neg-
ative attitudes toward robots, Interaction Studies: Social Be-
haviour and Communication in Biological and Articial Sys-
tems, 2006, 7(3), 437–454, http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.
14nom
[34] N. Döring, J. Bortz, Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den
Sozialund Humanwissenschaften [Research methods and eval-
uation in social science and humanities], Springer, 2016
[35] K. Backhaus, B. Erichson, W. Plinke, R. Weiber, Multivariate
Analysemethoden [Multivariate analysis methods], Springer,
2016
[36] M. Rosenberg, Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE), Acceptance
and commitment therapy, Measures package, 1965, 52, https:
//doi.org/10.1037/t01038-000
336 |Jessica M. Szczuka and Nicole C. Krämer
[37] J. Stiller, S. Würth, D. Alfermann, Die Messung des physis-
chen Selbstkonzepts (PSK) [Measurement of the self-concept],
Zeitschrift für Dierentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie,
2004, 25(4), 239–257, https://doi.org/10.1024/0170-1789.25.
4.239
[38] B. A. Boekhout, Relationship exclusivity and extrarelationship
involvement: Perceptions, determinants and consequences,
PhD thesis, Texas Tech University, USA, 2000
[39] N. Neave, R. Jackson, T. Saxton, J. Hönekopp, The influence of
anthropomorphic tendencies on human hoarding behaviours,
Personality and Individual Dierences, 2015, 72, 214–219,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.041
[40] Ex Machina, 2014, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/
[41] Westworld, 2016, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475784/
?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
[42] J. Daniels, Rethinking Cyberfeminism(s): Race, gender, and em-
bodiment, WSQ: Women’s studies quarterly, 2009, 37(1-2), 101–
124, https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.0.0158
[43] S. Paasonen, Revisiting cyberfeminism, Communications, 2011,
36(3), 335–352, https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2011.017
[44] S. Paasonen, The woman question: Addressing women as in-
ternet users, In: M. Fernandez, F. Wilding, M. M. Wright (Eds.),
Domain errors! Cyberfeminist practices, Autonomedia; Pluto,
2002
[45] R. Murphy, D. D. Woods, Beyond Asimov: The three laws of re-
sponsible robotics, IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2009, 24(4), 14–
20, https://doi.org/10.1109/mis.2009.69
[46] R. Clarke, Asimov’s laws of robotics: Implications for informa-
tion technology, In: M. Anderson, S. L. Anderson (Eds.), Machine
Ethics, Cambridge University Press, 2011, https://doi.org/10.
1017/cbo9780511978036.020
[47] J. Gips, Towards the ethical robot, In: M. Anderson, S. L. Ander-
son (Eds.), Machine ethics, Cambridge University Press, 2011,
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511978036.019
[48] J. Wright, The iPhone-controlled sex toy you can turn on
from anywhere, The New York Post, 12 October 2014,
https://nypost.com/2014/10/12/more-couples-are- tryingapp-
controlled-sex-toys/
[49] A. Krueger, Virtual reality gets naughty, The New York Times, 28
October 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/28/style/
virtual-reality-porn.html
[50] Blade Runner, 1982, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/
?ref_=nv_sr_2
[51] K. F. MacDorman, S. K. Vasudevan, C.-C. Ho, Does Japan really
have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit
measures, AI & Soc, 2009, 23(4), 485–510, https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00146-008- 0181-2
[52] K. S. Haring, C. Mougenot, F. Ono, K. Watanabe, Cultural dier-
ences in perception and attitude towards robots, International
Journal of Aective Engineering, 2014, 13(3), 149–157, https:
//doi.org/10.5057/ijae.13.149
[53] E. D. Widmer, J. Treas,R. Newcomb, Attitudes toward nonmarital
sex in 24 countries, Journal of Sex Research, 1998, 35(4), 349–
358, https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551953
[54] B. P. Buunk, A. Angleitner, V. Oubaid, D. M. Buss, Sex dier-
ences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: tests
from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States, Psycho-
logical Science, 1996, 7(6), 359–363, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-9280.1996.tb00389.x
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
