When Female-Voiced Robots Talk Back: Effects of Assertive vs. Apologetic Response to Mistreatment on Observer Perception

Abstract

Everyday voice-based agents are often feminized and are increasingly exposed to inappropriate or aggressive user behavior. While most agents respond with polite and accommodating strategies during conflict, it remains unclear how alternative response styles are perceived, particularly by observers. In a within-subjects video study, participants observed a female-voiced humanoid robot, Ameca, being verbally mistreated after a misunderstanding, with the robot responding either apologetically or assertively. Results show that the apologetic response was perceived as warmer and more effective in resolving the conflict, whereas the assertive response elicited higher negative affect and perceived mistreatment. Individual differences showed only limited effects, with a compromising conflict style associated with more favorable evaluations of the apologetic response in terms of communication and social skills. These findings suggest that polite and accommodating responses may remain socially effective in situations of mistreatment, but also raise important design questions for feminized robots. Consistent accommodating robot responses may reinforce submissive norms, whereas assertive responses may challenge these expectations but risk being perceived as more conflictual. This work highlights the need for robot response strategies that balance de-escalation, boundary-setting, and socially responsible interaction design.