Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 529–547 | Cite as

Social vs. Useful HRI: Experiencing the Familiar, Perceiving the Robot as a Sociable Partner and Responding to Its Actions

  • Ritta Baddoura
  • Gentiane VentureEmail author
Article

Abstract

We explore the human affective state of the familiar during a new or unknown situation as it relates to interacting with a robot. In a real unannounced interaction, we measure the familiar experienced by two humans interacting with a robot and the intensity and adequacy of their response to its proactive social (greetings) and practical (task to fulfill) actions. We investigate the participants’ response to three non-verbal actions performed by the robot NAO: greeting hello (social), handing a questionnaire to the participant (practical), and greeting goodbye (social). We analyze the participants’ reactions to the robot’s actions, the motion of their arms, and their answers to some parts of a questionnaire designed to measure their experience of the familiar and the robot’s sociability. We show that (1) the higher the familiar is experienced while interacting with the robot, the more participants responded to its practical action; no similar interdependency was found regarding its social actions; (2) the change of behavior of the robot between participants had no significant effect on the familiar experienced nor on the readiness to respond to the robot; (3) the higher the appreciation of the robot’s sociability, the more intense was the human movement when responding to the social actions; no similar interdependency was found for the practical action; and (4) the more the participants responded adequately to the robot in a practical action, the more they responded to its social actions.

Keywords

Social human robot interaction Affective state Assistive robot Domestic robot Mathematical modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We mostly wish to thank Dr. Marie Krempf for her enthusiastic and valuable help as well as all the GV lab students, Tokyo Univ. of Agriculture and Technology, Japan.

Supplementary material

(MP4 1.3 MB)

References

  1. 1.
    Lee EJ (2008) Flattery may get computers somewhere, sometimes: the moderating role of output modality, computer gender, and user gender. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 66:789–800 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Turkle S (2006) A nascent robotics culture: new complicities for companionship. AAAI technical report series, July 2006 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee N, Shin H, Shyam Sundar S (2011) Utilitarian vs hedonic robots, role of parasocial tendency and anthropomorphism in shaping user attitudes. In: Int conf on human-robot interaction, pp 183–184 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fischer K (2011) Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. In: Proc int conf human-robot interaction, pp 53–60 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walters ML, Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Dautenhahn K, Boekhorst R (2008) Human approach distances to a mechanical-looking robot with different robot voice styles. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE int symp on robot and human interactive communication, pp 707–712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fanaswala I, Browning B, Skar M (2011) Interactional disparities in English and Arabic native speakers with a bi-lingual robot receptionist. In: Int conf on human-robot interaction Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Takano E, Chikaraishi T, Matsumoto Y, Nakamura Y, Ishiguro H, Sugamoto K (2009) Psychological effects on interpersonal communication by bystander android using motions based on human-like needs. In: IEEE/RSJ int conf on intelligent robots and systems, pp 3721–3726 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zitzewitz J, Boesch P, Wolf P, Riener R (2013) Quantifying the human likeness of a humanoid robot. Int J Soc Robot 5:263–276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mori M (1970) Bukimi No Tani (The Uncanny Valley). Energy 7(4):33–35 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hall L, Woods S, Sobral D, Paiva A, Dautenhahn K, Paiva A, Wolke D (2004) Designing empathic agents: adults vs kids. In: Int conf on intelligent tutoring systems, pp 125–126 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    MacDorman K, Ishiguro H (2006) The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interact Stud 7(3):297–337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bethel CL, Murphy RR (2006) Affective expression in appearance-constrained robots. In: Proc of ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conf on human robot interaction, pp 327–328 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanson D, Olney A, Pereira IA, Zielke M (2005) Upending the uncanny valley. In: Proc of the American association for artificial intelligence (WS-05-11) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bartneck C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) My robotic doppelganger—a critical look at the uncanny valley theory. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN2009), Toyama, pp 269–276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Canamero L (2002) Playing the emotion game with Feelix: what can a LEGO robot tell us about emotion? In: Edmonds B (ed) Socially intelligent agents: creating relationships with computers and robots, pp 69–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brenton H, Gillies M, Ballin D, Chattin D (2005) The uncanny valley: does it exist? In: Proceedings of conference of human computer interaction, workshop on human animated character interaction Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salvini P, Laschi C, Dario P (2010) Design for acceptability: improving robot’s coexistence in human society. Int J Soc Robot 2:451–460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Enz S, Diruf M, Spielhagen C, Zoll C, Vargas A (2011) The social role of robots in the future-explorative measurement of hopes and fears. Int J Soc Robot 3:263–271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baddoura R, Matuskata R, Venture G (2012) The familiar as a key-concept in regulating the social and affective dimensions of HRI. In: Proc IEEE/RAS int conf on humanoid robots, pp 234–241 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Joy B (2000) Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired 804 Mag Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sabelli AM, Kanta T, Hagita N (2011) A conversational robot in an elderly care center, an ethnographic study. In: Int conf on human-robot interaction, pp 37–44 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Freud S (2005) The uncanny (das Unheimliche, 1919). Penguin Books, London Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jentsch E (1906) On the psychology of the uncanny (zur Psychologie des Unheimlichen). Psychiatr-Neurol Wochenschr, 195–198 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baddoura R, Zhang T, Venture G (2013) Experiencing the familiar, understanding the interaction and responding to a robot proactive partner. In: Proc ACM/IEEE Int Conf on Human-Robot Interaction, Tokyo, Japan, pp 247–248 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hess E (1958) “Imprinting” in animals. In: Psychobiology: the biological basis of behavior, pp 107–112 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zajonc R (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol 9(2):1–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller R (1976) Mere exposure, psychological reactance and attitude change. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 59:1–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weiss A, Bernhaupt R, Tscheligi M, Wollherr D, Kuhnlenz K, Buss M (2008) A methodological variation for acceptance evaluation of human-robot interaction in public places. In: IEEE int symp on robot and human interactive communication, pp 713–718 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gillespie DL, Leffler A (1983) Theories of non-verbal behavior: a critical review of proxemics research. Sociol Theory 1983(1):120–154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Powers A, Kiesler S (2006) The advisor robot: tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In: Conference on human-robot interaction, pp 218–225 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Powers A, Kramer A, Lim S, Kuo J, Lee S, Kiesler S (2005) Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In: Proc IEEE int workshop robot and human interactive communication, pp 158–163 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eyssel F, Hegel F, Horstmann G, Wagner C (2010) Anthropomorphic inferences from emotional nonverbal cues: a case study. In: Proc IEEE int symp in robot and human interactive communication, pp 681–686 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Park E, Kong H, Lim H-T, Lee H, You S, del Pobil A (2011) The effect of robot’s behavior vs appearance on communication with humans. In: Int conf on human-robot interaction, pp 219–220 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114:864–886 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Luczak H, Rötting M, Schmidt L (2003) Let’s talk: anthropomorphization as means to cope with stress of interacting with technical devices. Ergonomics 46:1361–1374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D, Bobinger S (2011) Effects of anticipated human-robot interaction and predictability of robot behavior on perceptions of anthropomorphism. In: Int conf on human-robot interaction, pp 61–67 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hirschman EC, Holbrook MB (1982) Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. J Mark 46:92–101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weiss A, Bernhaupt R, Tscheligi M, Yoshida E (2009) Addressing user experience and societal impact in a user study with a humanoid robot. In: Proc symp new frontiers in human-robot interaction, pp 150–157 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang T, Venture G (2012) Individual recognition from gait using feature value method. Cybern Inf Technol 12:86–95 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hinds PJ, Roberts TL, Jones H (2004) Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Hum-Comput Interact 19:151–181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cowley S, Kanda T (2005) Friendly machines: interaction-oriented robots today and tomorrow. Alternation 12:76–106 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Montpellier Univ.MontpellierFrance
  2. 2.Tokyo Univ. of Agriculture and TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations