Influences of Evaluation and Gaze from a Robot and Humans’ Fear of Negative Evaluation on Their Preferences of the Robot
- 294 Downloads
To investigate influences of evaluation from robots, gazes from the robots, and humans’ fear of negative evaluation (FNE) into the humans’ preferences of the robots, we conducted an experiment in which a human-sized robot is used for an advisory role, providing suggestion in foreign-language education. There were three independent variables controlled: evaluation from robot (evaluative vs. non-evaluative robot), users’ FNE (low FNE vs. high FNE), and gaze from robot (refrained gazes vs. normal gazes), and dependent variables were participants’ preferences of the robot as subjective measures and amount of utterances as an objective measure. The experimental results suggested that when the robot evaluated participants with a lower FNE, they preferred to use the robot with normal gaze behavior more than those with a higher FNE. While the effect of refrained gaze is not clear for people with higher FNE, for people with lower FNE, refrained gaze reduced their intention to participate when the robot evaluated them. Moreover, the experimental results suggested that persons having higher FNE tend to trust the robot more, and participants spoke more when the robot did not evaluate them and when it used the normal gaze. This paper discusses the implications for applications with potential evaluation capability, e.g. for healthcare and education.
KeywordsHuman–robot interaction Evaluation from a robot Fear of negative evaluation Gaze
The research was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grant–in–Aid for Scientific Research No. 21118006. The authors deeply thank Dr. Michihiro Shimada and Ms. Sayaka Taniguchi in the ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communication Laboratories for their cooperation with the conduction of the experiment in this research.
- 2.Kidd C (2008) Designing for long-term human-robot interaction and application to weight loss. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 3.Nass C, Jonsson IM, Harris H, Reaves B, Endo J (2005) Improving automotive safety by pairing driver emotion and car voice emotion. In: Proceedings of ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI2005), pp 1973–1976Google Scholar
- 4.Saerbeck M, Schut T, Bartneck C, Janse MD (2010) Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In: Proceedings of ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI2010), pp 1613–1622Google Scholar
- 5.Brave S, Nass C, Hutchinson K (2005) Computers that care: Investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. Int J Hum Comput Stud 62:161–178Google Scholar
- 6.Watson JB, Friend R (1969) Measurement of social-evaluation anxiety. J Consult Clin Psychol 33:448–457Google Scholar
- 7.Leary MR (1983) Understanding social anxiety: social, personality, and clinical perspectives. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
- 8.Horley K, Williamsa L, Gonsalvezb C, Gordon E (2003) Social phobics do not see eye to eye: a visual scanpath study of emotional expression processing. J Anxiety Disord 17:33–44Google Scholar
- 10.Pertaub DP, Slater M, Barker C (2001) An experiment on fear of public speaking in virtual reality. Stud Health Technol Inf 81:372–378Google Scholar
- 13.Ishikawa R, Sasaki K, Hukui I (1992) Standardization of Japanese version of fne and sads. Jap J Behav Ther 18:10–17Google Scholar
- 16.Kang SH, Gratch J (2010) Virtual humans elicit socially anxious interactants’ verbal self-disclosure. Comput Animat Virtual Worlds 21:473–482Google Scholar