International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 21–30 | Cite as

Rapport–Expectation with a Robot Scale

  • Tatsuya NomuraEmail author
  • Takayuki Kanda


As interaction with robots grows, humans are expected to develop greater rapport with them. Assuming that such further interaction will fuel developmental research, we developed a psychological scale for measuring rapport called the Rapport–Expectation with a Robot Scale (RERS). From a controlled experiment where human participants interacted with a robot with/without behaviors based on relational strategies, our validation process found the following: (1) our RERS scale had sufficient internal consistency; (2) the robot behaviors, which were based on relational strategies, increased the participants’ RERS scores; and (3) participants who treated the robot as a human—like conversation partner had higher RERS scores than those who did not.


Human-robot interaction Evaluation from a robot Fear of negative evaluation Gaze 



The authors thank Kanako Tomita and Dr. Kotaro Hayashi for their cooperation with the experiment’s conduction. The research was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grants–in–Aid for Scientific Research No. 21118006, 21118008, 21118001, and 25280095


  1. 1.
    Aikawa A, Yoshimori M (1995) An attempt to construct a scale to measure sensibilities to indebtedness. Jpn J Soc Psychol 11(1):63–72Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aron A, Aron EN, Smollan D (1992) Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J personal soc psychol 63:596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartneck C, Kulic D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertacco M (2007) Social norms and behavioral regulation in asynchronous communication: the shift of attention during speed communication. Human Comput Interact 22:299–324Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bickmore T, Picard RW (2005) Establishing and maintaining long-term human–computer relationships. ACM Trans Comput Human Interact 12(2):293–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark LC, Watson D (1995) Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess 7(3):309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coan G (1984) Rapport: definition and dimensions. Adv Consum Res 11:333–336Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heerink M, Krose B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2008) The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. J Phys Agents 2(2):33–40Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hinds PJ, Roberts TL, Jones H (2004) Whose job is it anyway? a study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human Comput Interact 19:151–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoffman G, Breazeal C (2010) Effects of anticipatory perceptual simulation on practiced human-robot tasks. Auton Robots 28:403–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horvath AO, Greenberg LS (1989) Development and validation of the working alliance inventory. J Counsel Psychol 36:223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kahn P, Ishiguro H, Friedman B, Kanda T, Freier N, Severson R, Miller J (2007) What is a human?—toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human–robot interaction. Interact Studies 8:363–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahn PH, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Freier NG, Severson RL, Gill BT, Ruckert JH, Shen S (2012) Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now: children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev Psychol 48:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanda T, Shiomi M, Miyashita Z, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) An affective guide robot in a shopping mall. In: Proceeding ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI 2009), pp 173–180Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kawai H, Toda T, Ni J, Tsuzaki M, Tokuda K (2004) Ximera: a new tts from atr based on corpus-based technologies. In: Proceedings of ISCA speech synthesis workshop, pp 179–184Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kidd CD (2008) Designing for long-term human-robot interaction and application to weight loss. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kidd CD, Breazeal C (2008) Robots at home: understanding long-term human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2008), pp 3230–3235Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirby R, Forlizzi J, Simmons R (2010) Affective social robots. Robot Auton Syst 58:322–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee MK, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S, Rybski P, Antanitis J, Savetsila S (2012) Personalization in hri: a longitudinal field experiment. In: Proceedings of 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI 2012), pp 319–326Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2012) Long-term interactions with empathic robots: evaluating perceived support in children. In: Proceedings of international conference on social robotics, pp 298–307Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2014) Empathic robots for long-term interaction. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lohse M (2011)Small groups in human–robot interaction. Poster presented at international conference on social robotics (ICSR11)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lohse M (2012) Treating robots as social beings-a matter of personal preconceptions or interpersonal alignment? In: Proceeding of IEEE international symposiumu on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2012), pp 839–844Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mumm J, Mutlu B (2011) Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 331–338Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K (2008) Prediction of human behavior in human–robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots. IEEE Trans Robot 24(2):442–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ruckert JH, Kahn PH Jr, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Shen S, Gary HE (2013) Designing for sociality in hri by means of multiple personas in robots. In: Proceedings 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 217–218Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Segura EM, Cramer H, Gomes PF, Nylander S, Paiva A (2012) Revive!: reactions to migration between different embodiments when playing with robotic pets. In: Proceedings 11th international conference on interaction design and children, pp 88–97Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML, Ho WC (2013) Sharing spaces, sharing lives—the impact of robot mobility on user perception of a home companion robot. In: Proceedings international conference on social robotics, pp 321–330Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tanaka F, Cicourel A, Movellan JR (2007) Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (PNAS) 104(46):17954–17958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tanno H (2009) The friendship function for internal adaptation in undergraduates. Jpn J Youth Adolesc Psychol 20:55–69Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tickle-Degnen L, Rosenthal R (1990) The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychol Inquiry 1:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Torrey C, Fussell SR, Kiesler S (2013) How a robot should give advice. In: Proceedinds of ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI 2013), pp 275–282Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yamaji Y, Miyake T, Yoshiike Y, Silva PRSD, Okada M (2011) Stb: child-dependent sociable trash box. Int J Soc Robot 3(4):359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media InformaticsRyukoku UniversityOtsuJapan
  2. 2.ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communication LaboratoriesKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations