Rapid increases in population ageing and the associated rise in the prevalence of dementia have created many challenges for the care of older people with dementia. As the majority of people now living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) now have dementia, the need to maximise the quality of life for this group is increasingly recognised. While such issues have attracted research and policy attention in recent years, the evidence base for practice in dementia care is still underdeveloped. The need for more effective therapeutic interventions to improve the quality of life for older people with dementia is recognised, particularly those living in RACFs. The use of pets is one example of recent attempts to help create a more home-like environment and dog therapy is available in many facilities. Well designed research to demonstrate whether it actually has a positive impact on residents’ quality of life is lacking. This study is the first reported randomised controlled trial investigating dog therapy for people with dementia. Fifty-five older people with mild to moderate dementia living in three residential aged care facilities in the Greater Brisbane area participated in this study. The goal was to identify whether dog therapy accrued any benefits to residents’ well being and compare the benefits, if any, with human-only therapy intervention. The main hypothesis was that dog contact delivered in a small group recreational therapy format would have a beneficial effect on the well being of participants. It was additionally hypothesised that prior and current positive relationships with dogs would be related to improved outcomes of dog therapy and support a human-animal bond explanation of relationship development with the therapy dog(s). Participants were randomly assigned into two groups within each facility: The dog therapy group and a human-only therapy group. Session plans were structured according to a recreational therapy format. Three therapy dogs were used (a miniature Poodle, a Staffordshire Terrier and a German Shepherd Dog) with one dog present at any dog therapy session A before-and-after design was used with concealment of participants at allocation. Mixed methods were used including a panel of seven validated psychometric instruments, an observational measure and a series of four novel questionnaires, dogs for older groups with Alzheimer’s (DOGA), developed de novo specifically to investigate the effects of dog therapy on participants within this study. Measures of mood, quality of life, health and psychosocial functioning, collectively referred to as well-being, detected benefits accruing to dog therapy participants compared with human-only therapy that approached significance (p = .056) with a large effect size (partial eta squared 16.6%). A different measure of mood and apathy showed similar improvement for participants of both therapy types trialed with analyses of a smaller dataset (n = 36) revealing an overall highly significant result (p=.008) and large effect size (partial eta squared = 25.6%) for all participants. To explore the perceptions of care staff to the dog therapy intervention, a self-complete semi-structured questionnaire was completed by a sample of 21 from two of the study facilities. Content analysis revealed that staff overwhelmingly supported dog therapy with a total of 84 comments about benefits and 22 about risks. Responses were categorised and then linked into emergent themes: a temporal dimension, sense of self and increased opportunities for self expression. The opportunity provided by the therapy dog for accessible caring physical contact for participants was identified as important. General recreational therapy goals such as improved mood, reminiscence and increased levels of conversation were reported by staff to continue beyond interventions. The observed risks were: confusion over dog ownership, subsequent worry about losing the dog after sessions, jealousy over the therapy dog and one participant did not enjoy the small group format. Participants described their experiences of contact with the therapy dog as “like” above “attached”. Personal preference explanations are therefore supported, rather than “attachment”, to explain outcomes for participants. This suggests the psychosocial approach has greater relevance here than human-animal bond explanations. Effects of previous dog attachment on outcomes were inconclusive but there was some evidence that participants’ relationship with the therapy dog(s) influenced outcomes, though the nature of that relationship has not been clarified. Recommendations from the study findings are that dog therapy be conducted for people with mild to moderate levels of dementia in groups of 3-11 for a duration of around 10 weeks with sessions for 30 minutes held once or twice weekly and according to a standard format. Opportunities for participants to touch, hug and interact directly with the therapy dog should be maximised without compromising dog welfare. The findings suggest that respect for the personhood of participants is important to the success of the therapy types trialled, which further supports psychosocial therapies involving contact with people or live animals for use with people with dementia over those that minimise or exclude it.

Rapid increases in population ageing and the associated rise in the prevalence of dementia have created many challenges for the care of older people with dementia. As the majority of people now living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) now have dementia, the need to maximise the quality of life for this group is increasingly recognised. While such issues have attracted research and policy attention in recent years, the evidence base for practice in dementia care is still underdeveloped. The need for more effective therapeutic interventions to improve the quality of life for older people with dementia is recognised, particularly those living in RACFs. The use of pets is one example of recent attempts to help create a more home-like environment and dog therapy is available in many facilities. Well designed research to demonstrate whether it actually has a positive impact on residents’ quality of life is lacking. This study is the first reported randomised controlled trial investigating dog therapy for people with dementia. Fifty-five older people with mild to moderate dementia living in three residential aged care facilities in the Greater Brisbane area participated in this study. The goal was to identify whether dog therapy accrued any benefits to residents’ well being and compare the benefits, if any, with human-only therapy intervention. The main hypothesis was that dog contact delivered in a small group recreational therapy format would have a beneficial effect on the well being of participants. It was additionally hypothesised that prior and current positive relationships with dogs would be related to improved outcomes of dog therapy and support a human-animal bond explanation of relationship development with the therapy dog(s). Participants were randomly assigned into two groups within each facility: The dog therapy group and a human-only therapy group. Session plans were structured according to a recreational therapy format. Three therapy dogs were used (a miniature Poodle, a Staffordshire Terrier and a German Shepherd Dog) with one dog present at any dog therapy session A before-and-after design was used with concealment of participants at allocation. Mixed methods were used including a panel of seven validated psychometric instruments, an observational measure and a series of four novel questionnaires, dogs for older groups with Alzheimer’s (DOGA), developed de novo specifically to investigate the effects of dog therapy on participants within this study. Measures of mood, quality of life, health and psychosocial functioning, collectively referred to as well-being, detected benefits accruing to dog therapy participants compared with human-only therapy that approached significance (p = .056) with a large effect size (partial eta squared 16.6%). A different measure of mood and apathy showed similar improvement for participants of both therapy types trialed with analyses of a smaller dataset (n = 36) revealing an overall highly significant result (p=.008) and large effect size (partial eta squared = 25.6%) for all participants. To explore the perceptions of care staff to the dog therapy intervention, a self-complete semi-structured questionnaire was completed by a sample of 21 from two of the study facilities. Content analysis revealed that staff overwhelmingly supported dog therapy with a total of 84 comments about benefits and 22 about risks. Responses were categorised and then linked into emergent themes: a temporal dimension, sense of self and increased opportunities for self expression. The opportunity provided by the therapy dog for accessible caring physical contact for participants was identified as important. General recreational therapy goals such as improved mood, reminiscence and increased levels of conversation were reported by staff to continue beyond interventions. The observed risks were: confusion over dog ownership, subsequent worry about losing the dog after sessions, jealousy over the therapy dog and one participant did not enjoy the small group format. Participants described their experiences of contact with the therapy dog as “like” above “attached”. Personal preference explanations are therefore supported, rather than “attachment”, to explain outcomes for participants. This suggests the psychosocial approach has greater relevance here than human-animal bond explanations. Effects of previous dog attachment on outcomes were inconclusive but there was some evidence that participants’ relationship with the therapy dog(s) influenced outcomes, though the nature of that relationship has not been clarified. Recommendations from the study findings are that dog therapy be conducted for people with mild to moderate levels of dementia in groups of 3-11 for a duration of around 10 weeks with sessions for 30 minutes held once or twice weekly and according to a standard format. Opportunities for participants to touch, hug and interact directly with the therapy dog should be maximised without compromising dog welfare. The findings suggest that respect for the personhood of participants is important to the success of the therapy types trialled, which further supports psychosocial therapies involving contact with people or live animals for use with people with dementia over those that minimise or exclude it.

Rapid increases in population ageing and the associated rise in the prevalence of dementia have created many challenges for the care of older people with dementia. As the majority of people now living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) now have dementia, the need to maximise the quality of life for this group is increasingly recognised. While such issues have attracted research and policy attention in recent years, the evidence base for practice in dementia care is still underdeveloped. The need for more effective therapeutic interventions to improve the quality of life for older people with dementia is recognised, particularly those living in RACFs. The use of pets is one example of recent attempts to help create a more home-like environment and dog therapy is available in many facilities. Well designed research to demonstrate whether it actually has a positive impact on residents’ quality of life is lacking. This study is the first reported randomised controlled trial investigating dog therapy for people with dementia. Fifty-five older people with mild to moderate dementia living in three residential aged care facilities in the Greater Brisbane area participated in this study. The goal was to identify whether dog therapy accrued any benefits to residents’ well being and compare the benefits, if any, with human-only therapy intervention. The main hypothesis was that dog contact delivered in a small group recreational therapy format would have a beneficial effect on the well being of participants. It was additionally hypothesised that prior and current positive relationships with dogs would be related to improved outcomes of dog therapy and support a human-animal bond explanation of relationship development with the therapy dog(s). Participants were randomly assigned into two groups within each facility: The dog therapy group and a human-only therapy group. Session plans were structured according to a recreational therapy format. Three therapy dogs were used (a miniature Poodle, a Staffordshire Terrier and a German Shepherd Dog) with one dog present at any dog therapy session A before-and-after design was used with concealment of participants at allocation. Mixed methods were used including a panel of seven validated psychometric instruments, an observational measure and a series of four novel questionnaires, dogs for older groups with Alzheimer’s (DOGA), developed de novo specifically to investigate the effects of dog therapy on participants within this study. Measures of mood, quality of life, health and psychosocial functioning, collectively referred to as well-being, detected benefits accruing to dog therapy participants compared with human-only therapy that approached significance (p = .056) with a large effect size (partial eta squared 16.6%). A different measure of mood and apathy showed similar improvement for participants of both therapy types trialed with analyses of a smaller dataset (n = 36) revealing an overall highly significant result (p=.008) and large effect size (partial eta squared = 25.6%) for all participants. To explore the perceptions of care staff to the dog therapy intervention, a self-complete semi-structured questionnaire was completed by a sample of 21 from two of the study facilities. Content analysis revealed that staff overwhelmingly supported dog therapy with a total of 84 comments about benefits and 22 about risks. Responses were categorised and then linked into emergent themes: a temporal dimension, sense of self and increased opportunities for self expression. The opportunity provided by the therapy dog for accessible caring physical contact for participants was identified as important. General recreational therapy goals such as improved mood, reminiscence and increased levels of conversation were reported by staff to continue beyond interventions. The observed risks were: confusion over dog ownership, subsequent worry about losing the dog after sessions, jealousy over the therapy dog and one participant did not enjoy the small group format. Participants described their experiences of contact with the therapy dog as “like” above “attached”. Personal preference explanations are therefore supported, rather than “attachment”, to explain outcomes for participants. This suggests the psychosocial approach has greater relevance here than human-animal bond explanations. Effects of previous dog attachment on outcomes were inconclusive but there was some evidence that participants’ relationship with the therapy dog(s) influenced outcomes, though the nature of that relationship has not been clarified. Recommendations from the study findings are that dog therapy be conducted for people with mild to moderate levels of dementia in groups of 3-11 for a duration of around 10 weeks with sessions for 30 minutes held once or twice weekly and according to a standard format. Opportunities for participants to touch, hug and interact directly with the therapy dog should be maximised without compromising dog welfare. The findings suggest that respect for the personhood of participants is important to the success of the therapy types trialled, which further supports psychosocial therapies involving contact with people or live animals for use with people with dementia over those that minimise or exclude it.

Rapid increases in population ageing and the associated rise in the prevalence of dementia have created many challenges for the care of older people with dementia. As the majority of people now living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) now have dementia, the need to maximise the quality of life for this group is increasingly recognised. While such issues have attracted research and policy attention in recent years, the evidence base for practice in dementia care is still underdeveloped. The need for more effective therapeutic interventions to improve the quality of life for older people with dementia is recognised, particularly those living in RACFs. The use of pets is one example of recent attempts to help create a more home-like environment and dog therapy is available in many facilities. Well designed research to demonstrate whether it actually has a positive impact on residents’ quality of life is lacking. This study is the first reported randomised controlled trial investigating dog therapy for people with dementia. Fifty-five older people with mild to moderate dementia living in three residential aged care facilities in the Greater Brisbane area participated in this study. The goal was to identify whether dog therapy accrued any benefits to residents’ well being and compare the benefits, if any, with human-only therapy intervention. The main hypothesis was that dog contact delivered in a small group recreational therapy format would have a beneficial effect on the well being of participants. It was additionally hypothesised that prior and current positive relationships with dogs would be related to improved outcomes of dog therapy and support a human-animal bond explanation of relationship development with the therapy dog(s). Participants were randomly assigned into two groups within each facility: The dog therapy group and a human-only therapy group. Session plans were structured according to a recreational therapy format. Three therapy dogs were used (a miniature Poodle, a Staffordshire Terrier and a German Shepherd Dog) with one dog present at any dog therapy session A before-and-after design was used with concealment of participants at allocation. Mixed methods were used including a panel of seven validated psychometric instruments, an observational measure and a series of four novel questionnaires, dogs for older groups with Alzheimer’s (DOGA), developed de novo specifically to investigate the effects of dog therapy on participants within this study. Measures of mood, quality of life, health and psychosocial functioning, collectively referred to as well-being, detected benefits accruing to dog therapy participants compared with human-only therapy that approached significance (p = .056) with a large effect size (partial eta squared 16.6%). A different measure of mood and apathy showed similar improvement for participants of both therapy types trialed with analyses of a smaller dataset (n = 36) revealing an overall highly significant result (p=.008) and large effect size (partial eta squared = 25.6%) for all participants. To explore the perceptions of care staff to the dog therapy intervention, a self-complete semi-structured questionnaire was completed by a sample of 21 from two of the study facilities. Content analysis revealed that staff overwhelmingly supported dog therapy with a total of 84 comments about benefits and 22 about risks. Responses were categorised and then linked into emergent themes: a temporal dimension, sense of self and increased opportunities for self expression. The opportunity provided by the therapy dog for accessible caring physical contact for participants was identified as important. General recreational therapy goals such as improved mood, reminiscence and increased levels of conversation were reported by staff to continue beyond interventions. The observed risks were: confusion over dog ownership, subsequent worry about losing the dog after sessions, jealousy over the therapy dog and one participant did not enjoy the small group format. Participants described their experiences of contact with the therapy dog as “like” above “attached”. Personal preference explanations are therefore supported, rather than “attachment”, to explain outcomes for participants. This suggests the psychosocial approach has greater relevance here than human-animal bond explanations. Effects of previous dog attachment on outcomes were inconclusive but there was some evidence that participants’ relationship with the therapy dog(s) influenced outcomes, though the nature of that relationship has not been clarified. Recommendations from the study findings are that dog therapy be conducted for people with mild to moderate levels of dementia in groups of 3-11 for a duration of around 10 weeks with sessions for 30 minutes held once or twice weekly and according to a standard format. Opportunities for participants to touch, hug and interact directly with the therapy dog should be maximised without compromising dog welfare. The findings suggest that respect for the personhood of participants is important to the success of the therapy types trialled, which further supports psychosocial therapies involving contact with people or live animals for use with people with dementia over those that minimise or exclude it.

Rapid increases in population ageing and the associated rise in the prevalence of dementia have created many challenges for the care of older people with dementia. As the majority of people now living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) now have dementia, the need to maximise the quality of life for this group is increasingly recognised. While such issues have attracted research and policy attention in recent years, the evidence base for practice in dementia care is still underdeveloped. The need for more effective therapeutic interventions to improve the quality of life for older people with dementia is recognised, particularly those living in RACFs. The use of pets is one example of recent attempts to help create a more home-like environment and dog therapy is available in many facilities. Well designed research to demonstrate whether it actually has a positive impact on residents’ quality of life is lacking. This study is the first reported randomised controlled trial investigating dog therapy for people with dementia. Fifty-five older people with mild to moderate dementia living in three residential aged care facilities in the Greater Brisbane area participated in this study. The goal was to identify whether dog therapy accrued any benefits to residents’ well being and compare the benefits, if any, with human-only therapy intervention. The main hypothesis was that dog contact delivered in a small group recreational therapy format would have a beneficial effect on the well being of participants. It was additionally hypothesised that prior and current positive relationships with dogs would be related to improved outcomes of dog therapy and support a human-animal bond explanation of relationship development with the therapy dog(s). Participants were randomly assigned into two groups within each facility: The dog therapy group and a human-only therapy group. Session plans were structured according to a recreational therapy format. Three therapy dogs were used (a miniature Poodle, a Staffordshire Terrier and a German Shepherd Dog) with one dog present at any dog therapy session A before-and-after design was used with concealment of participants at allocation. Mixed methods were used including a panel of seven validated psychometric instruments, an observational measure and a series of four novel questionnaires, dogs for older groups with Alzheimer’s (DOGA), developed de novo specifically to investigate the effects of dog therapy on participants within this study. Measures of mood, quality of life, health and psychosocial functioning, collectively referred to as well-being, detected benefits accruing to dog therapy participants compared with human-only therapy that approached significance (p = .056) with a large effect size (partial eta squared 16.6%). A different measure of mood and apathy showed similar improvement for participants of both therapy types trialed with analyses of a smaller dataset (n = 36) revealing an overall highly significant result (p=.008) and large effect size (partial eta squared = 25.6%) for all participants. To explore the perceptions of care staff to the dog therapy intervention, a self-complete semi-structured questionnaire was completed by a sample of 21 from two of the study facilities. Content analysis revealed that staff overwhelmingly supported dog therapy with a total of 84 comments about benefits and 22 about risks. Responses were categorised and then linked into emergent themes: a temporal dimension, sense of self and increased opportunities for self expression. The opportunity provided by the therapy dog for accessible caring physical contact for participants was identified as important. General recreational therapy goals such as improved mood, reminiscence and increased levels of conversation were reported by staff to continue beyond interventions. The observed risks were: confusion over dog ownership, subsequent worry about losing the dog after sessions, jealousy over the therapy dog and one participant did not enjoy the small group format. Participants described their experiences of contact with the therapy dog as “like” above “attached”. Personal preference explanations are therefore supported, rather than “attachment”, to explain outcomes for participants. This suggests the psychosocial approach has greater relevance here than human-animal bond explanations. Effects of previous dog attachment on outcomes were inconclusive but there was some evidence that participants’ relationship with the therapy dog(s) influenced outcomes, though the nature of that relationship has not been clarified. Recommendations from the study findings are that dog therapy be conducted for people with mild to moderate levels of dementia in groups of 3-11 for a duration of around 10 weeks with sessions for 30 minutes held once or twice weekly and according to a standard format. Opportunities for participants to touch, hug and interact directly with the therapy dog should be maximised without compromising dog welfare. The findings suggest that respect for the personhood of participants is important to the success of the therapy types trialled, which further supports psychosocial therapies involving contact with people or live animals for use with people with dementia over those that minimise or exclude it.

Rapid increases in population ageing and the associated rise in the prevalence of dementia have created many challenges for the care of older people with dementia. As the majority of people now living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) now have dementia, the need to maximise the quality of life for this group is increasingly recognised. While such issues have attracted research and policy attention in recent years, the evidence base for practice in dementia care is still underdeveloped. The need for more effective therapeutic interventions to improve the quality of life for older people with dementia is recognised, particularly those living in RACFs. The use of pets is one example of recent attempts to help create a more home-like environment and dog therapy is available in many facilities. Well designed research to demonstrate whether it actually has a positive impact on residents’ quality of life is lacking. This study is the first reported randomised controlled trial investigating dog therapy for people with dementia. Fifty-five older people with mild to moderate dementia living in three residential aged care facilities in the Greater Brisbane area participated in this study. The goal was to identify whether dog therapy accrued any benefits to residents’ well being and compare the benefits, if any, with human-only therapy intervention. The main hypothesis was that dog contact delivered in a small group recreational therapy format would have a beneficial effect on the well being of participants. It was additionally hypothesised that prior and current positive relationships with dogs would be related to improved outcomes of dog therapy and support a human-animal bond explanation of relationship development with the therapy dog(s). Participants were randomly assigned into two groups within each facility: The dog therapy group and a human-only therapy group. Session plans were structured according to a recreational therapy format. Three therapy dogs were used (a miniature Poodle, a Staffordshire Terrier and a German Shepherd Dog) with one dog present at any dog therapy session A before-and-after design was used with concealment of participants at allocation. Mixed methods were used including a panel of seven validated psychometric instruments, an observational measure and a series of four novel questionnaires, dogs for older groups with Alzheimer’s (DOGA), developed de novo specifically to investigate the effects of dog therapy on participants within this study. Measures of mood, quality of life, health and psychosocial functioning, collectively referred to as well-being, detected benefits accruing to dog therapy participants compared with human-only therapy that approached significance (p = .056) with a large effect size (partial eta squared 16.6%). A different measure of mood and apathy showed similar improvement for participants of both therapy types trialed with analyses of a smaller dataset (n = 36) revealing an overall highly significant result (p=.008) and large effect size (partial eta squared = 25.6%) for all participants. To explore the perceptions of care staff to the dog therapy intervention, a self-complete semi-structured questionnaire was completed by a sample of 21 from two of the study facilities. Content analysis revealed that staff overwhelmingly supported dog therapy with a total of 84 comments about benefits and 22 about risks. Responses were categorised and then linked into emergent themes: a temporal dimension, sense of self and increased opportunities for self expression. The opportunity provided by the therapy dog for accessible caring physical contact for participants was identified as important. General recreational therapy goals such as improved mood, reminiscence and increased levels of conversation were reported by staff to continue beyond interventions. The observed risks were: confusion over dog ownership, subsequent worry about losing the dog after sessions, jealousy over the therapy dog and one participant did not enjoy the small group format. Participants described their experiences of contact with the therapy dog as “like” above “attached”. Personal preference explanations are therefore supported, rather than “attachment”, to explain outcomes for participants. This suggests the psychosocial approach has greater relevance here than human-animal bond explanations. Effects of previous dog attachment on outcomes were inconclusive but there was some evidence that participants’ relationship with the therapy dog(s) influenced outcomes, though the nature of that relationship has not been clarified. Recommendations from the study findings are that dog therapy be conducted for people with mild to moderate levels of dementia in groups of 3-11 for a duration of around 10 weeks with sessions for 30 minutes held once or twice weekly and according to a standard format. Opportunities for participants to touch, hug and interact directly with the therapy dog should be maximised without compromising dog welfare. The findings suggest that respect for the personhood of participants is important to the success of the therapy types trialled, which further supports psychosocial therapies involving contact with people or live animals for use with people with dementia over those that minimise or exclude it.

Moral judgments and moral emotions are a ubiquitous feature of social interactions. Humans decide quickly and intuitively whether an action is morally right or wrong. Schadenfreude and sympathy, as emotional reactions to the misfortunes of others, are prototypical moral emotions. So far, however, little evidence exists concerning children’s understanding of schadenfreude. Within three studies, we investigated the experience of schadenfreude and sympathy among N = 364 children of different age groups. We interviewed the children while showing them picture stories. In the picture stories, we varied the behavior of the protagonist prior to a misfortune: (1) whether his behavior had been morally right or wrong, (2) whether the protagonist attained his goal, (3) whether the protagonist was responsible for the misfortune. In addition, in one study we varied (4) the emotional relationship of the interviewed children to the protagonist. Furthermore, we asked the children to decide whether they want to sit next to the protagonist or do him a favor. Results show that children experience sympathy as well as schadenfreude at the age of 4 years. Sympathy is more likely to arise when the protagonists of a story are likable, when these actors typically pursue morally positive goals, and if they are not responsible for their misfortune. In contrast, schadenfreude is more likely when the protagonist is disliked, when actors pursue immoral goals and if they are responsible for their misfortune. In addition, sympathy increases approach (helping behavior, sitting next to the agent and doing favors), whereas schadenfreude increases avoidance tendencies.

For effective Human-Robot Interactions, robots have to achieve the same level of understanding as humans in every aspect. Humans are highly versatile, able to switch between frames of reference and consider multiple perspectives efficiently. Additionally, humans help and care for each other in the hope of contributing to a better society. When we talk about interacting with robots, the uncertainty around how to collaborate with them has become an emerging topic in the past few years. To bring social robots into humans’ lives, researchers need to understand the conditions and implications of robots’ actions on human responses and perceptions of robots. This project aims at understanding the link between a robot taking a human’s perspective and the human’s exhibition of prosocial behaviour toward the robot. To test our hypotheses, we have designed an activity where the participant picks an object from an array of objects in front of them, after listening to the robot’s descriptions of that object. Divided into three between-subject conditions, the robot took different perspectives to address the objects in each condition. After completing the tasks, participants could either help the robot collect speech data or move on with filling the final questionnaire and finishing the experiment. Our findings show that the participants were significantly more likely to help the robot when the robot took their perspective (human-centred) compared to both the control condition (object-centred) and when the robot did not take their perspective (robot-centred). Additionally, the results show that when the robot’s descriptions of an object were ambiguous, in the first instruction, 96% of the participants perceived the robot’s first instruction using an egocentric perspective. However, when the robot made such ambiguous instructions again later, participants perceived the instructions based on the mental model developed about the robot for that condition. / Robotar måste, i alla avseenden, uppnå samma nivå av förståelse som människor, i syfte till att skapa ett effektivt samspel. Människor är versatila, kan växla mellan olika referensramar och beakta flera perspektiv på ett effektivt sätt. Dessutom hjälper dem och även tar hand om varandra i hopp om att bidra till ett bättre samhälle. När man talar om att interagera med robotar har osäkerheten kring samarbetet blivit ett framväxande ämne under de senaste åren. För att få in sociala robotar i människors liv måste forskarna förstå förutsättningar för och konsekvenser av robotars handlingar gentemot människors reaktioner och uppfattningar om dem. Detta projekt syftar därför till att förstå kopplingen mellan en robot som intar en människas perspektiv samt människans uppvisande av prosocialt beteende gentemot roboten. För att testa hypotesen har en aktivitet designats där en robot ger instruktioner till en deltagare att välja ett visst föremål som den beskriver, utifrån en rad med olika objekt. Med tanke på att deltagarna endast tilldelas ett villkor av tre möjliga, tog roboten olika perspektiv för att adressera objektet i varje betingelse. Efter den slutförda uppgiften kunde deltagarna antingen hjälpa roboten att samla in tal-data eller gå vidare med att fylla i ett sista frågeformulär och avsluta experimentet. Resultatet visar på att deltagarna var mer benägna att hjälpa roboten när den tog deras perspektiv (människokoncentrerad) i jämförelse med både kontrollvillkoren (objektcentrerad) och när roboten inte tog deras perspektiv (robotcentrerad). Dessutom visar även resultatet att robotens beskrivning av ett objekt var tvetydliga. I den första instruktionen upplevde 96% av deltagarna att robotens instruktion hade ett egocentriskt perspektiv. När roboten gjorde ytterligare sådana tvetydliga instruktioner, När roboten gjorde ytterligare sådana tvetydliga instruktioner, uppfattades instruktionerna däremot utifrån den mentala modellen som utvecklades om roboten för just det villkoret.