# We Do Not Anthropomorphize a Robot Based Only on Its Cover: Context Matters too!
## 3 The Importance of Contextual Effects in the Models of Anthropomorphism  
### A Contextless Model: The Mere Appearance Hypothesis  
One model does not take into account the effects of the context in which the interaction takes place: _the mere appearance hypothesis_[26]. For the proponents of this approach, it is the appearance of the agent itself that activates processes usually used in human-human interactions. In human-human interactions, socio-cognitive processes are triggered automatically, given that humans are social agents. The misattribution of this social agent status, based only on the appearance of the agent, would trigger these processes similarly and, thus, be the cause of anthropomorphism [28; 29]. Therefore, an individual confronted with a robot relies on their socio-cognitive capacities acquired from humans, due to the absence of a behavior explanation mechanism specifically tailored to robots [30]. According to the mere appearance hypothesis, humans would generalize these mechanisms to stimuli (agents or objects), depending on their superficial resemblance to humans (in appearance or behavior). This argument is founded on work showing that organisms can generalize their responses to new stimuli when they resemble the original [31]. This phenomenon explains social reactions expressed by individuals in the presence of inanimate objects, such as eye-like geometric shapes. Therefore, robots similarly prompt a generalization of stimuli, which explains the occurrence of perspective-taking toward robots [26]. According to this theory, the perspective-taking of a robot by a human is only done if the robot has an appearance that resembles the human (rather than activated by the perception of a mind in the robot). If the robot does not have a human appearance, the consideration of the robot's perspective is less, whereas it will be important when the robot strongly resembles the human and will persist even if the robot is perceived as strange or witless. The integration of the robot's perspective-taking is related to the level of anthropomorphism of the robot. Participants adopt the perspective of an iconic robot (NAO or BAXTER) more than an abstract robot (THYMIO) or a biologically similar non-human agent, namely a cat. When the robot (BAXTER) has a face or a head and looks at the target, participants adopt its perspective more. Similarly, the perspective-taking rate of a humanoid (i.e., strongly human-like) robot (ERICA) is higher than that observed for the iconic robot but lower than that of the human agent [26]. Furthermore, in human interactions, observing another individual performing goal-directed actions (such as gaze orientation or grasping an object) increases a person's tendency to adopt another individual's physical perspective [32]. The authors speculate that, similarly, observing a robot's actions may reinforce the tendency of individuals to adopt its perspective. Indeed, in a human-like robot, when comparing a directed gaze or gesture with a blank star, goal-directed actions seem to elicit more perspective-taking [26]. In the same study, if the robot (BAXTER) had a face but looked to the side, the participants adopted its perspective as much as when it had no face or head. This result led the authors to argue that \"the impact of human-like appearance on perspective taking lies more in the goal-directed behaviors that it enables--such as gaze and reaching--than in the mere possession of the physical features per se\" ([26], p. 16). Despite these observations, others have shown that a human-like appearance is neither sufficient nor necessary to trigger anthropomorphism, since some non-human-like agents are also anthropomorphized, such as zoomorphic [33] and abstract robots [34], geometric figures [35], computers, or cars [7]. Conversely, some agents with a strong human resemblance are less anthropomorphized than agents with a moderate human resemblance [36].