Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 417–427 | Cite as

Keep an Eye on the Task! How Gender Typicality of Tasks Influence Human–Robot Interactions

  • Dieta Kuchenbrandt
  • Markus Häring
  • Jessica Eichberg
  • Friederike Eyssel
  • Elisabeth André
Article

Abstract

In an experiment, we tested whether the gender typicality of a human–robot interaction (HRI) task would affect the users’ performance during HRI and the users’ evaluation, acceptance and anthropomorphism of the robot. \(N = 73\) participants (38 females and 35 males) performed either a stereotypically male or a stereotypically female task while being instructed by either a ‘male’ or a ‘female’ robot. Results revealed that gender typicality of the task significantly affected our dependent measures: More errors occurred when participants collaborated with the robot in the context of a stereotypically female work domain. Moreover, when participants performed a typically female task with the robot they were less willing to accept help from the robot in a future task and they anthropomorphized the robot to a lower extent. These effects were independent of robot and participant gender. Our findings demonstrate that the gender typicality of HRI tasks substantially influences HRI as well as humans’ perceptions and acceptance of a robot.

Keywords

Gender Human–robot interaction Robot evaluation Robot acceptance Anthropomorphism  

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by EU (FP7-ICT-257666) under grant agreement eCUTE and the German Research Council (COE 277).

References

  1. 1.
    Dario P, Guglielmelli E, Laschi C, Teti G (1999) MOVAID: a personal robot in everyday life of disabled and elderly people. Technol. Disabil. 10:77–93Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heerink M, Krose B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2006) The influence of a robot’s social abilities on acceptance by elderly users. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 521–526Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Enz S, Diruf M, Spielhagen C, Zoll C, Vargas P (2011) The social role of robots in the future—explorative measurement of hopes and fears. Int J Soc Robot 3(3):263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berk RA, Berk SF (1979) Labor and leisure at home: content and organization of houshold day. Sage, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thompson L, Walker AJ (1989) Gender in families: women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood. J Marriage Fam 51:845–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harper M, Schoeman WJ (2003) Influences of gender as a basic-level category in person perception on the gender belief system. Sex Roles 49:517–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bussey K, Bandura A (1999) Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychol Rev 106:676–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56:81–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nass C, Moon Y, Green N (1997) Are computers gender-neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. J Appl Soc Psychol 27(10):864–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eyssel F, Hegel F (2012) (S)he’s got the look: gender-stereotyping of social robots. J Appl Soc Psychol 42:2213–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D, Hegel F, de Ruiter L (2012) Activating elicited agent knowledge: how robot and user features shape the perception of social robots. In: Proceedings of the 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 851–857Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Powers A, Kramer ADI, Lim S, Kuo J, Lee S-L, Kiesler S (2005) Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 158–163Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siegel M, Breazeal C, Norton MI (2009) Persuasive robotics: the influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 2563–2568Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114:864–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schermerhorn P, Scheutz M, Crowell C (2008) Robot social presence and gender: do females view robots differently than males?. In: The Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE conference on human–robot interaction, pp 263–270Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siino R, Hinds P (2005) Robots, gender and sensemaking: sex segregations impact on workers making sense of a mobile autonomous robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mutlu B, Osman S, Forlizzi J, Hodgins J, Kiesler S (2006) Perceptions of Asimo: task structure and user attributes as elements of human-robot interaction design. In: Extended abstracts of the 15th IEEE symposium on robot and human interactive, pp 351–352Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human–robot cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 55–60Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Häring M, Eichberg J, André E (2012) Studies on grounding with gaze and pointing gestures in human–robot-interaction. In: Social robotics. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7621, pp 378–387Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ishiguro H, Ono T, Imai M, Maeda T, Nakatsu R, Kanda T (2001) Robovie: an interactive humanoid robot. Int J Ind Robot 28:498–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salem M, Eyssel F, Rohlfing K, Kopp, S, Joublin F (2011) Effects of gesture on the perception of psychological anthropomorphism: a case study with a humanoid robot. In: Proceedings of the international conference of social robotics, pp 31–41Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D (2012) Social categorization of social robots: anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. Br J Soc Psychol 51(4):724–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gray HM, Gray K, Wegner DM (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315:619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D (2011) Manipulating anthropomorphic inferences about NAO: the role of situational and dispositional aspects of effectance motivation. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE international symposium in robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2011), pp 467–472Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Crowell CR, Scheutz M, Schermerhorn P, Villano M (2009) Gendered voice and robot entities: perceptions and reactions of male and female subjects. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 3735–3741Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdalezbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dieta Kuchenbrandt
    • 1
  • Markus Häring
    • 2
  • Jessica Eichberg
    • 2
  • Friederike Eyssel
    • 1
  • Elisabeth André
    • 2
  1. 1.Center of Excellence in Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)University of Bielefeld BielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Human Centered Multimedia, Institute of Computer ScienceAugsburg UniversityAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations