2022
Annual Report
ReportGender preference for humans, android-type robots, andmechanical-type robots in sports and physical activities1)
Tomohiro SUZUKI（Tokyo Future University ）Tatsuya NOMURA（Ryukoku University ）Introducing robots into sports and physical activities may increase motivation and promote physical activity. This
study aimed to clarify whether people prefer robots with a male or female appearance in sports and physicalactivities. It moreover aimed to determine whether this preference is based on their gender preference for humans.
In the study, 1200 adult men and women participated and responded to question for assessing gender preference
for humans, android-type robots, and mechanical-type robots. The results showed that “either” was selected by mostof the respondents, and there was no relationship between these responses and participants’ gender. Furthermore,
there was a moderately strong relationship between the gender preferences for humans and robots. The results
indicate that the assignment of a robot’s gender does not seem to be necessary when introducing robots into sports
and physical activities that improve people's health. It may be appropriate to introduce a robot with a neutral
appearance to avoid reproducing any gender bias.

Keywords : HRI (human–robot interaction), sport, physical activity, gender preference, gender bias

Introduction
It is important to live a healthy life, andphysical activity is necessary for that goal. Previous
studies have revealed that interaction with others
increases motivation and can promote physicalactivity. In addition to interaction with humans,interaction with robots has also been considered as away to promote physical activity, and this approach
has also been investigated. The results of a previous
study suggest that robots are effective in motivating
exergaming (Feltz, Forlenza, Winn, & Kerr, 2014),
and promoting physical activity (Yamada, Ohsuga,
Hashimoto, Inoue, & Nakaizumi, 2010). In addition,
research has indicated that some people prefer robots
to humans in sports and physical activity interactions,and this preference is more pronounced in people
with social anxiety (Suzuki, Yamada, Nomura, &Kanda, 2021).
The appearance of a robot is important
not only in daily communication situations but
also during physical activities. Furthermore, theinfluence of gender on appearance cannot beignored. Robots are easily assigned gender by their
physical characteristics, and problems associatedwith robots with gender-specific properties (so-called“gendered robots”) may then arise. Hence, we shouldcarefully examine and discussed these matters whenintroducing robots. Previous studies suggest that
men tend to prefer robots with female features andwomen tend to prefer robots with male features. In
other words, cross-gender effects—men tend to preferrobots with female features, and women tend to40

Annual Report 2022

prefer robots with male features—have been observed(Alexander, Bank, Yang, Hayes, & Scassellati, 2014;
Koulouri, Lauria, Macredie, & Chen, 2012; Siegel,
Breazeal, & Norton, 2009). By contrast, other studies
have shown that robots assigned the same sex are
evaluated more preferably (Kuchenbrandt, Häring,
Eichberg, Eyssel, & André, 2014). Furthermore, aperson’s gender preference for a robot might be basedon gender stereotypes people have toward people(Eyssel & Hegel, 2012; Tay, Jung, & Park, 2014). It isconsidered that the interaction between preferences
for human gender and robot gender may differ
depending on various types of interaction factors,
such as the situation, task, and the human’s genderstereotypes. Accordingly, factors related to robot
gender must be taken into account when considering
the introduction of robots into daily life.
At this time, the gendered expectations
for robots remain unclear. Whether these genderstereotypes are related to existing gender stereotypes
in people is also not obvious. The impact of robot
gender may interact with many factors and genderpreference for robots depends on these factors. Hence,
this study aimed to clarify whether people preferrobots with male or female appearances in sports
and physical activities and whether this preference isbased on gender preferences for humans.

MethodParticipants

The participants in this study consisted of1200 adult men and women in their 20s to 60s (600

Annual Report 202240

men and 600 women, 240 in each 10-year age range).

Questionnaire
Physical activity and sports situations. The physicalactivity and sports situations were prepared withreference to a previous study (Suzuki et al., 2021).
There are seven different situations, each with twotargets: an instructor and a partner. These situations
are common physical activities that people canperform. Additionally, communication can occur inthese situations. In each situation, an instructor and apartner were considered as the interacting people.
Gender preference for humans. In each situation,
the respondents were asked to choose whether theywanted to interact with a human with the same gender
or a human with the different gender in each situation
by responding with one of the following options: “Iwant a human with the same gender to interact with,”“I don't mind either,” or “I want a human with anothergender to interact with.”
Gender preference for robot. For the robot, therespondents were asked to choose whether theywanted to interact with android-type or mechanicaltype robots of the same gender or another gender andeach situation by responding with one the following
options: “I want a robot with the same gender type tointeract with,” “I don't mind either,” or “I want a robot
with another gender type to interact with.” In thissurvey, the android-type robot was defined as “a robotthat looks exactly like a human,” and the mechanicaltype robot was defined as “a robot that is similar
to a human but has the appearance of metal andmachinery.” Furthermore, sample images of the robots(refer to Appendix 1) were shown to the respondents
so that they could easily imagine the android- andmechanical-type robots.

regarding gender preference were converted from thesame gender and another gender to male and female
based on the gender of the respondent. That is, theanswers were re-categorized into “male,” “neither,” and“female” and then used for the following analysis.
First, we summarized the gender preference
ratios of humans, android-type robots, and mechanicaltype robots in sports and physical activities situations.
In most situations, “either” or “female” were selectedby more than 90% of the respondents for humans,
android-type robots, and mechanical-type robots.
Furthermore, for mechanical type-robots, “either”
was selected noticeably more often than “female.”
The results of the gender preference ratios arepresented in Table 1 (The number of responses forgender preferences before converting the answers arepresented in Appendix 2 for reference).
The association between participants’gender and gender preferences was examined. The
associations between gender and gender preferences
for humans, android-type robots, and mechanical-type
robots are presented in Table 2. For some situations,gender preference for humans differed according to
the participant’s gender, but gender preference forandroid- and mechanical-type robots did not differ
considerably. There was no difference with respect totarget (instructor or partner).
The association between gender preference
for humas, android-type robots, and mechanical-type
robots was also examined (Table 3). In all situations
and for all targets, the gender preferences for humans,
android-type robots, and mechanical-type robots weremoderately related.

Procedure
We counterbalanced the order of robot
types, the order of physical activity and sports
situations, and the order of instructors and partners.
The survey was conducted in October
2020 by monitors registered with a web-based
survey company (iBRIDGE Corporation). This study
was approved by the ethics review committee of theuniversity to which the second author belongs.

Results
Prior to the subsequent analysis, the answers

41

Annual Report 2022

Annual Report 2022

41

Table 1 Number of responses for gender preferences in various activities
Human
Android-type robot
Mechanical-type robot
Male
Either Female
Male
Either Female
Male
Either Female
I
98
803
299
67
916
217
55
1004
141
(8.2)
(66.9)(24.9)(5.6)(76.3)(18.1)(4.6)(83.7)(11.8)Walking/Jogging
P
94
755
351
63
921
216
47
1011
142
(7.8)
(62.9)(29.3)(5.3)(76.8)(18.0)(3.9)(84.3)(11.8)
I
165
723
312
83
919
198
71
993
136
Training at a sports(13.8)(60.3)(26.0)(6.9)(76.6)(16.5)(5.9)(82.8)(11.3)
P
148
716
336
91
899
210
63
993
144
gym
(12.3)(59.7)(28.0)(7.6)(74.9)(17.5)(5.3)(82.8)(12.0)
I
128
646
426
83
878
239
50
995
155
(10.7)(53.8)(35.5)(6.9)(73.2)(19.9)(4.2)(82.9)(12.9)
Swimming
P
124
635
441
82
869
249
54
990
156
(10.3)(52.9)(36.8)(6.8)(72.4)(20.8)(4.5)(82.5)(13.0)
I
163
773
264
81
925
194
60
1015
125
(13.6)(64.4)(22.0)(6.8)(77.1)(16.2)(5.0)(84.6)(10.4)
Ball games
P
142
782
276
82
913
205
57
1015
128
(11.8)(65.2)(23.0)(6.8)(76.1)(17.1)(4.8)(84.6)(10.7)
I
72
639
489
50
891
259
42
993
165
Gymnastics/Yoga/(6.0)(53.3)(40.8)(4.2)(74.3)(21.6)(3.5)(82.8)(13.8)
P
80
639
481
59
872
269
40
985
175
Aerobics(6.7)(53.3)(40.1)(4.9)(72.7)(22.4)(3.3)(82.1)(14.6)
I
94
664
442
50
893
257
37
1008
155
(7.8)
(55.3)(36.8)(4.2)(74.4)(21.4)(3.1)(84.0)(12.9)
Stretching exercises
P
113
619
468
66
876
258
44
995
161
(9.4)
(51.6)(39.0)(5.5)(73.0)(21.5)(3.7)(82.9)(13.4)
I
88
704
408
62
902
236
44
1008
148
(7.3)
(58.7)(34.0)(5.2)(75.2)(19.7)(3.7)(84.0)(12.3)
Dancing
P
94
657
449
69
875
256
45
991
164
(7.8)
(54.8)(37.4)(5.8)(72.9)(21.3)(3.8)(82.6)(13.7)
Note. I: Instructor, P: partner. The values in parentheses are percentages.

Table 2 Associations between a participant's gender and gender preferences
Participant's gender vs.
gender preference for humans
Cramér's V.09
IWalking/Jogging
.07
P
.19
I
Training at asports gym
.19
P
.23
I
Swimming
.24
P
.18
I
Ball games
.19
P
.14
Gymnastics/Yoga/ I
Aerobics
.16
P
.16
I
Stretching
exercises
.21
P
.07
I
Dancing.17P
Note. I: Instructor, P: partner.

42

Annual Report 2022

χ2

Participant's gender vs. genderpreference for android-type
robotsdf

p- value

Cramér's V

10.01 2.015.65 2

χ2

Participant's gender vs. genderpreference for mechanicaltype robots

χ2df

p- value

Cramér's V

df

p- value.11

15.66 2.00

.03

1.22 2

.54

.06

.08

8.67 2.01.01

0.05 2.98

42.48 2.00

.1115.37 2.00

.09

8.97 2.0142.72 2.00

.1217.39 2.00

.06

4.96 2.08

66.03 2.00

.1114.29 2.00

.030.90 2.64

69.59 2.00

.09

10.38 2.01

.06

4.03 2.13

39.24 2.00

.1216.51 2.00

.03

0.78 2.68

41.63 2.00

.1321.36 2.00

.03

0.91 2.6422.07 2.00

.06

4.92 2.09.04

1.82 2.40

30.72 2.00

.05

3.22 2.20.04

1.81 2.40

29.96 2.00

.07

6.66 2.04.03

1.13 2.57

51.82 2.00

.05

2.89 2.24.04

1.62 2.45

6.70 2.04.14

23.29 2.00

.05

3.25 2.20

32.92 2.00

.18

40.53 2.00

.07

6.36 2.04

Annual Report 2022

42

Table 3 Associations between each gender preference
Gender preference for humans
vs.
gender preference formechanical-type robots

Gender preference for humans
vs.
gender preference for androidtype robots
Cramér's V
Walking/Jogging
Training at asports gym
Swimming
Ball games
Gymnastics/
Yoga/Aerobics
Stretching
exercises
Dancingχ2

df p- value

Cramér's Vχ2

df p- value

Gender preference for androidtype robots vs. genderpreference for mechanical-type
robots
Cramér's Vχ2

df p- valueI.44 474.65 4.00.31 237.90 4.00.44 462.51 4.00P.44 463.59 4.00.30 220.56 4.00.42 432.15 4.00

I.42 429.00 4.00.27 180.27 4.00.45 490.71 4.00

P.42 424.94 4.00.30 209.96 4.00.48 551.00 4.00

I.43 445.03 4.00.28 184.18 4.00.46 502.24 4.00

P.45 476.59 4.00.25 154.14 4.00.43 438.45 4.00

I.45 494.73 4.00.30 214.64 4.00.47 520.38 4.00P.44 454.56 4.00.29 206.38 4.00.47 541.28 4.00

I.43 434.10 4.00.30 216.44 4.00.47 523.40 4.00P.38 352.07 4.00.30 215.65 4.00.44 454.47 4.00

I.42 429.03 4.00.28 192.40 4.00.42 432.20 4.00P.42 419.72 4.00.27 176.37 4.00.41 396.03 4.00

I.43 445.93 4.00.28 184.03 4.00.46 517.36 4.00

P.49 572.10 4.00.31 230.18 4.00.46 510.15 4.00

Note. I: Instructor, P: partner.

Discussion
This study aimed to clarify whether people
prefer robots with a male or female appearancein sport and physical activities and whether thispreference is based on gender preferences forhumans.
The results showed that in the selection
ratio of human, android-type robots, and mechanicaltype robots, for all situations and targets, “male”
was not selected; instead, “female” or “either” wereselected. Furthermore, the number of respondents
who chose “either” was higher than the number whochose “female,” and this was more noticeable for themechanical-type robot. Furthermore, there was no
relationship between these responses and participants’gender, which indicates that the preferred gender ofthe robot tended to be independent of the gender ofparticipants, regardless of the target’s role in sports
and physical activity situations. Therefore, in terms ofusers’ needs, it is not necessary to assign a gender toa robot when introducing it into sports and physicalactivities, and it may be good to introduce a robot
with a neutral gendered appearance.
There was a moderately strong relationship43

Annual Report 2022

between the gender preferences for humans androbots. In other words, the results suggested that theattitudes for humans was reflected in the attitudes
for robots. Furthermore, although there was somerelationship between the gender preferences for the
android-type robot and the machine-type robot, thegender preference for the android-type robot tended
to be somewhat more strongly related to the genderpreference for humans than the gender preference
for the machine-type robot. Therefore, the results alsosuggested that the gender preference for humans wasmore likely to be reflected in the presence of humanelements in robots. These trends were similar for all
the sports and physical activity situations as well as forboth instructor and partner targets. When introducing
robots, it may be necessary to take into account somegender preferences for humans. However, as alreadymentioned, many people do not care about genderin the first place, so the introduction of a neutral
gendered robot in a sports or physical activity may be
a better alternative. The results of this study show thatmany respondents do not care about the gender of therobot they are interacting with, and from this pointof view, it is not necessary to introduce a robot thatclearly indicates its gender. That is, a gender does not

Annual Report 202243

need to be assigned to robots when introducing theminto sports and physical activities.
It has been pointed out that gendered robots
may lead to the reproduction of gender stereotypes(e.g., Marchetti-Bowick ,2009; Robertson, 2010; Weber& Bath, 2007). Hence, because gender assignment
without taking into account the consequences canbe a serious problem, the introduction of genderedrobots needs to be carefully considered. Considering
the results of the present study, it is possible that the
introduction of robots into sports or physical activities
can be used to promote physical activity withoutcausing the reproduction of gender stereotypes by
not necessarily assigning a gender to the robot. In
addition, the introduction of non-gendered robots canprevent the reproduction of stereotypes and reduce
existing gender stereotypes.
There were no differences between the
results for instructor and partner targets. The content
and frequency of communication and physical contact
between instructors and partners differ because of
the differences in their roles. Regardless of thesedifferences, the tendency to choose robots over people
was confirmed, suggesting that the introduction ofrobots for the promotion of sport and physical activity
can be performed without regard to the role or typeof sports or physical activity. Of course, there is apossibility that this tendency will be different for the
sports and physical activities that were not examinedsituations were set up, there is a possibility that theassumed interactions differed for each person. For
example, in the case of a ball game, the interaction
may change depending on whether it is an individual
game or a group game. This in turn may change
the gender preference. In future, considering thecharacteristics of the interactions in more specificphysical activities and sports situations will benecessary. In addition, many of the participantschose "I don't mind either." However, they may havechosen this because they were unable to sufficiently
imagine the situation. Therefore, the degree of
imagination must also be dealt with and its possible
influence must be analyzed. Lastly, in this study,
the answers regarding gender preference wereconverted from “same gender” and “another gender”
to “male” and “female” based on the gender of the
respondent prior to analysis. If the survey asked the
respondents to choose either “male” or “female” asthe gender preference, gender stereotypes may haveinfluenced their responses. This is another importantconsideration for further study.

Note. 1) This study was funded by a Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (No. 20H05573) from theJapan Society for the Promotion of Science.

in this study, and it will be important to examine thesituation again for each situation in which robots are
introduced.
The assignment of a robot’s gender does notseem to be necessary when introducing robots into
sports and physical activities for improving people’s health. Although people who do not have a genderpreference for humans are less likely to have a genderpreference for robots in this study, to prevent the
reproduction of gender stereotypes through robots,gender elimination in the design may be a better
solution. For good health, it is important to start andmaintain sports and physical activity, and there is agood probability that robots will be useful for thispurpose. The introduction of robots, for example, may
make it easier for people with high social anxiety toparticipate in these activities. The introduction of nongendered robots may also have the secondary effect of
reducing the gender stereotyping of peoples.
Finally, the limitations of this study arelisted. Although several physical activities and sports

44

Annual Report 2022

Annual Report 2022

44

References

information society technology [in German] (pp.
53–63). Weissbaden, Germany: Springer.

Alexander, E., Bank, C., Yang, J. J., Hayes, B., & Scassellati,

Yamada, E., Ohsuga, M., Hashimoto, W., Inoue, Y., &B. (2014). Asking for help from a gendered robot.

Nakaizumi, F. (2010). Proposal of system which

Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference ofpromotes physical activity at home and thethe Cognitive Science Society , 2333–2338.
Eyssel, F., & Hegel, F. (2012). (S)he’s got the look: Gendereffects of promotion using a robot. Japanese

Journal of Ergonomics, 46 , 230–236.

stereotyping of robots. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 42 , 2213–2230.
Feltz, D. L., Forlenza, S. T., Winn, B., & Kerr, N. L. (2014).
Cyber buddy is better than no buddy: A testof the Köhler motivation effect in exergames.

Games for Health Journal, 3 , 98–105.
Koulouri, T., Lauria, S., Macredie, R. D., & Chen, S. (2012).
Are we there yet? The role of gender on theeffect iveness a nd eff iciency of user–robot
communication in navigational tasks. ACM

Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction,
19 , 1–29.
Kuchenbrandt, D., Häring, M., Eichberg, J., Eyssel, F., &André, E. (2014). Keep an eye on the task! How
gender typicality of tasks inf luence human–robot interactions. International Journal of Social

Robotics, 6 , 417–427.
Marchetti-Bowick, M. (2009). Is your Roomba male orfemale? The role of gender stereotypes andcultural norms in robot design. Intersect: The

Stanford Journal of Science, Technology, andSociety, 2 , 90–103.
Robertson, J. (2010). Gendering humanoid robots: Robosexism in Japan. Body & Society , 16 , 1–36.
Siegel, M., Breazeal, C., & Norton, M. I. (2009). Persuasive
robotics: The inf luence of robot gender onhuman behavior. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ

International Conference on Intelligent Robots
and Systems , 2563–2568.
Suzuki, T., Yamada, S., Nomura, T., & Kanda, T. (2021). Do
people with high social anxiety prefer robots as
exercise/sports partners? The Japanese Journalof Personality, 30 , 42–44.
Tay, B., Jung, Y., & Park, T. (2014). When stereotypes meetrobots: The double-edge sword of robot genderand personality in human–robot interaction.

Computers in Human Behavior, 38 , 75–84.
Weber, J., & Bath, C. (2007). ‘Social’ robots & ‘emotional’
software agents: Gendering processes and degendering strategies for ‘technologies in themaking.’ In Zorn, I., Maass, S., Rommes, E.,
Schirmer, C., & Schelhowe, H. (Eds.) Gender

designs IT: Construction and deconstruction of45

Annual Report 2022

Annual Report 2022

45

Appendix 1 The images presented as an example

Appendix 2 Number of responses for gender preferences before converting answers in various activities
Human
Same
I
Walking/Jogging

P
I

Training at a sports
gym

P
I

Swimming

P
I

Ball games

P
I

Gymnastics/Yoga/
Aerobics

P
I

Stretching exercises

P
I

DancingP

EitherAndroid-type robot
AnotherSame

EitherMechanical-type robot

AnotherSame

EitherAnother

217

803

180

124

916

160

94

1004

102

(18.1)(66.9)(15.0)(10.3)(76.3)(13.3)(7.8)(83.7)

(8.5)

239

755

206

129

921

150

93

1011

96

(19.9)(62.9)(17.2)(10.8)(76.8)(12.5)(7.8)(84.3)

(8.0)

300

723

177

138

919

143

122

993

85

(25.0)(60.3)(14.8)(11.5)(76.6)(11.9)(10.2)(82.8)

(7.1)

305

716

179

153

899

148

115

993

92

(25.4)(59.7)(14.9)(12.8)(74.9)(12.3)(9.6)(82.8)

(7.7)

366

646

188

178

878

144

108

995

97

(30.5)(53.8)(15.7)(14.8)(73.2)(12.0)(9.0)(82.9)

(8.1)

374

635

191

185

869

146

119

990

91

(31.2)(52.9)(15.9)(15.4)(72.4)(12.2)(9.9)(82.5)

(7.6)

245

773

182

134

925

141

91

1015

94

(20.4)(64.4)(15.2)(11.2)(77.1)(11.8)(7.6)(84.6)

(7.8)

251

782

167

136

913

151

96

1015

89

(20.9)(65.2)(13.9)(11.3)(76.1)(12.6)(8.0)(84.6)

(7.4)

328

639

233

146

891

163

111

993

96

(27.3)(53.3)(19.4)(12.2)(74.3)(13.6)(9.3)(82.8)

(8.0)

337

639

224

160

872

168

117

985

98

(28.1)(53.3)(18.7)(13.3)(72.7)(14.0)(9.8)(82.1)

(8.2)

325

664

211

140

893

167

95

1008

97

(27.1)(55.3)(17.6)(11.7)(74.4)(13.9)(7.9)(84.0)

(8.1)

369

619

212

164

876

160

109

995

96

(30.8)(51.6)(17.7)(13.7)(73.0)(13.3)(9.1)(82.9)

(8.0)

232

704

264

116

902

182

84

1008

108

(19.3)(58.7)(22.0)(9.7)(75.2)(15.2)(7.0)(84.0)

(9.0)

214

657

329

112

875

213

89

991

120

(17.8)(54.8)(27.4)(9.3)(72.9)(17.8)(7.4)(82.6)(10.0)

Note. Same: same gender, Another: another gender. I: Instructor, P: partner. The values in parentheses are percentages.

46

Annual Report 2022

Annual Report 2022

46

日本語タイトル
スポーツや身体活動場面における人やロボットに対する性選好
著者名鈴木公啓（東京未来大学）

野村竜也（龍谷大学）

要旨
スポーツや身体活動の場面にロボットを導入することは，モチベーションの向上そして活動促進につながる可能性がある。本研究は，スポーツや身体活動において，男女どちらの外見のロボットが好まれるのか，そして，その好みが人間に対する性別の好みに基づいているのかを明らかにすることを目的とした。成人男女1200名が，人間，
アンドロイド型ロボット，機械型ロボットに対する性別の選好をたずねる質問に回答した。分析の結果，ほとんどの参加者が「どちらでもよい」を選択し，また，その回答と参加者の性別との間には関係が認められなかった。さらに，人間とロボットの性別の好みには中程度の強い関係が見られた。これらの結果から，人々の健康増進を目的としたスポーツや身体活動にロボットを導入する際には，ロボットの性別をあえて割り当てる必要はないと考えられた。ジェンダーバイアスの再生産を避けるという点でも，中性的な外見のロボットを導入するのが適切な可能性が考えられる。
キーワード：HRI（ヒューマン・ロボット・インタラクション），スポーツ，身体活動，性選好，ジェンダーバイアス―2021.11.04 受稿 , 2022.01.19 受理―

47

Annual Report 2022

Annual Report 202247