Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 187–195 | Cite as

Robot Vacuum Cleaner Personality and Behavior

  • Bram Hendriks
  • Bernt Meerbeek
  • Stella Boess
  • Steffen Pauws
  • Marieke Sonneveld
Open Access
Article

Abstract

In this paper we report our study on the user experience of robot vacuum cleaner behavior. How do people want to experience this new type of cleaning appliance? Interviews were conducted to elicit a desired robot vacuum cleaner personality. With this knowledge in mind, behavior was designed for a future robot vacuum cleaner. A video prototype was used to evaluate how people experienced the behavior of this robot vacuum cleaner. The results indicate that people recognized the intended personality in the robot behavior. We recommend using a personality model as a tool for developing robot behavior.

Keywords

Robot vacuum cleaner User experience Personality Behavior 

References

  1. 1.
    Meerbeek B, Saerbeck M, Bartneck C (2009) Iterative design process for robots with personality. In: Proceedings of the new frontiers in human-robot interaction, symposium at the AISB2009 convention, SSAISB. Springer, Berlin, pp 94–101. ISBN-190295680X Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rutland J (1978) Exploring the world of robots. Pan Books, London, pp 20–21 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prassler E, Kosuge K (2008) Domestic robots. In: Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 1253–1281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sung J, Grinter RE, Christensen HI (2010) Domestic robot ecology: an initial framework to unpack long-term acceptance of robots at home. Int J Soc Robot 2:417–429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sung J, Grinter RE, Christensen HI, Guo L (2008) Housewives or technophiles?: understanding domestic robot owners. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction 2008, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 129–136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sung J, Guo L, Grinter RE, Christensen HI (2007) “My Roomba is Rambo”: intimate home appliances. J Ubi Comput 4717:145–162 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Young JE, Hawkins R, Sharlin E, Igarashi T (2009) Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int J Soc Robot 1:95–108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forlizzi J (2007) How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction 2007, pp 129–136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C (2006) Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the Roomba vacuum in the home. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction 2006, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, pp 265–285 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCrae RR, Costa PT (1987) Validation of the five-factor model across instruments and observers. J Pers Soc Psychol 52:81–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992) NEO PI-R professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB (2003) A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. J Res Pers 37:504–528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Govers PCM (2004) Product personality. PhD, Delft University of Technology Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Órtiz-Nicolás JC (2006) Product personality in interaction. MSc, Delft University of Technology Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meerbeek BW, Hoonhout HCM, Bingley P, Terken J (2008) The influence of robot personality on perceived and preferred level of user control. Interact Stud 9(2):204–229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norman DA (2004) Emotional design: why we hate (or love) everyday things. Basic Books, New York Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Loenen E, De Ruyter B, Teeven V (2006) ExperienceLab: facilities. In: Aarts E, Diederiks E (eds) Ambient lifestyle: from concept to experience. BIS, Amsterdam, pp 47–53 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dautenhahn K (2007) Methodology and themes of human-robot interaction: a growing research field. Int J Adv Robot Syst 4(1):103–108 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walters ML, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, TeBoekhorst R, Koay KL (2008) Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Auton Robots 24(2):159–178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boess SU (2008) First steps in role playing. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Florence, Italy, pp 2017–2024 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klooster S, Overbeeke CJ (2005) Designing products as an integral part of choreography of interaction: the product’s form as an integral part of movement. In: Proceedings of the conference on design and semantics of form and movement 2005, pp 23–35 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Egmond R (2005) Emotional experience of frequency modulated sounds: implications for the design of alarm sounds. In: de Waard D, Brookhuis KA, Weikert CM (eds) Human factors in design. Shaker, Maastricht, pp 1–12 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bram Hendriks
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bernt Meerbeek
    • 2
  • Stella Boess
    • 1
  • Steffen Pauws
    • 2
  • Marieke Sonneveld
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Philips ResearchEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations