Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 83–93 | Cite as

Would Children Help a Robot in Need?

  • Tanya N. BeranEmail author
  • Alejandro Ramirez-Serrano
  • Roman Kuzyk
  • Sarah Nugent
  • Meghann Fior
Article

Abstract

Just as human-human behavior and interactions are important to study, human-robot interactions will take more prominence in the near future. These interactions will not only be in one direction, robots helping humans, but they will also be bidirectional with humans helping robots. This study examined the interactions between children and robots by observing whether children help a robot complete a task, and the contexts which elicited the most help. Five studies were conducted each consisting of 20 or more children per group with an approximate even number of boys and girls. Visitors to a science centre located in a major Western Canadian city were invited to participate in an experiment set up at the centre. Their behaviors with a robot, a small 5 degree of freedom robot arm programmed with a set of predefined tasks which could be selected during the experiments, were observed. Results of chi-square analyses indicated that children are most likely to help a robot after experiencing a positive introduction to it, X 2(1)=4.15,p=.04. Moreover, a positive introduction in combination with permission to help resulted in the vast majority (70%) of children helping. These results suggest that adult instructions about a robot impact children’s perceptions and helping behaviors towards it. The generalizability of these results to children’s helping behaviors towards people is also discussed.

Keywords

Robotics Children Prosocial behaviors Developmental robotics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baron RA (1997) The sweet smell of helping: effects of pleasant ambient fragrance on prosocial behavior in shopping malls. J Pers Soc Psychol 23(5):498–503 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartneck C, van der Hoek M, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (2007) “Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do!”: switching off a robot. In: HRI, pp 217–222 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartneck C, Verbunt M, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (2007) To kill a mockingbird robot. In: HRI 2007, pp 81–88 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breazeal C (1999) Sociable machines: expressive social exchange between humans and robots. Dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breazeal C, Scassellati B (1999) A context-dependent attention system for a social robot. In: Proc of the 6th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI99). Stockholm, Sweden, pp 1146–1151 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breazeal C, Scassellati B (2000) A context-dependant attention system for a social robot. In: Proc of sixteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, 2000, pp 1146–1151 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark RD, Word LE (1972) Why don’t bystanders help? because of ambiguity? J Pers Soc Psychol 24(3):392–400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conn Welch K, Lahiri U, Warren Z, Sarkar N (2010) An approach to the design of socially acceptable robots for children with autism spectrum disorders. Int J Soc Robot. Published online: 07 July 2010 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dovidio JF, Piliavin JA, Schroeder DA, Penner LA (eds) (2006) The context: When will people help? In: The social psychology of prosocial behavior, Routledge, UK, pp 65–105 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eisenberg N, Mussen PH (1989) The roots of prosocial behavior in children. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Expressindia (2008) Now, a robot as social companion. http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Now-a-robot-as-social-companion/280631/. Accessed 21 Aug 2009
  12. 12.
    Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):143–166 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garcia SM, Weaver K, Moskowitz GB, Darley JM (2002) Crowded minds: the implicit bystander effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 83:43–53 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gottlieb J, Carver CS (1980) Anticipation of future interaction and the bystander effect. J Exp Soc Psychol 16:253–260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gracia E, Garcia F, Lila M (2008) Police involvement in cases of intimate partner violence against women: The influence of perceived severity and personal responsibility. Violence Against Women 14:697–714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers B, Wielinga B (2008) The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. J Phys Agents 2(2):33–40 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoefnagels C, Zwikker M (2006) The bystander dilemma and child abuse: extending the Latane and Darley Model to domestic violence. J Appl Soc Psychol 31(6):1158–1183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huttenrauch H Eklundh KS (2006) To help or not to help a service robot: bystander intervention as a resource in human-robot collaboration. Interact Stud 7:455–477 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kahn PH, Freier NG, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Ruckert JH, Severson RL, Kane SK (2008) Design patterns for sociality in human-robot interaction. In: Proc of 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction, 2008, pp 97–104 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kozima H, Michalowski MP, Nakagawa C (2009) Keepon: a playful robot for research, therapy, and entertainment. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):3–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kraemer HC, Thiemann S (1987) How many subjects: statistical power analysis in research. Sage, Newbury Park Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lance CE, Woehr DJ (1986) Statistical control of halo: clarification from two cognitive models of the performance appraisal process. J Appl Psychol 71(4):679–685 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Latané B, Darley JM (1970) The unresponsive bystander: why doesn’t he help? Meredith Corporation, New York Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Latané B, Rodin J (1969) A lady in distress: inhibiting effects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention. J Exp Soc Psychol 5:189–202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    North AC, Tarrant M, Hargreaves DJ (2004) The effects of music on helping behavior: a field study. Environ Behav 36(2):266–275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ono T, Imai M (2000) Reading a robot’s mind: a model of utterance understanding based on the theory of mind mechanism. In: AAAI, pp 142–148 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Penner LA, Dovidio JF, Pilavin JA, Schroeder DA (2005) Prosocial behavior: multilevel perspectives. Annu Rev Psychol 56:365–392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prince CG (2008) Special issue on developmental robotics: Can experiments with machines inform theory in infant development? Infant Child Dev 17:1–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thornberg R (2007) A classmate in distress: schoolchildren as bystanders and their reasons for how they act. Soc Psychol Educ 10:5–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thorndike EL (1920) A constant error on psychological rating. J Appl Psychol 4:25–29 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xin M, Sharlin E (2007) Playing games with robots—a method for evaluation human-robot interaction. In: Sarkar N (ed) Human-robot interaction. Itech Education and Publishing, Vienna, pp 469–480 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yamamoto Y, Sato M, Hiraki K, Yamasaki N, Anzai Y (1992) A request of the robot: an experiment with the human-robot interactive system Huris. In: Proc of IEEE international workshop on robot and human communication, pp 204–209 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanya N. Beran
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alejandro Ramirez-Serrano
    • 2
  • Roman Kuzyk
    • 3
  • Sarah Nugent
    • 4
  • Meghann Fior
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Community Health SciencesUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringAutonomous Reconfigurable Robotics Systems Laboratory, University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  4. 4.Division of Applied PsychologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations