International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 211–221 | Cite as

Robovie as a Mascot: A Qualitative Study for Long-Term Presence of Robots in a Shopping Mall

Article

Abstract

This paper, which reports a qualitative study on a social robot in a local shopping mall in Japan, explores how visitors interacted, understood, and accepted it. In the shopping mall where we conducted our study, Robovie, a humanoid robot, has been tested for 3 years. Based on this context of long-term exposure to a social robot, we conducted short-term interviews and observations with the visitors to the mall. We analyzed the obtained qualitative data by a grounded-theory approach and identified four common trends: (1) association of the robot with its location; (2) assigning of future roles to the robot; (3) perceiving it as a form of entertainment for children, i.e., as a mascot; and (4) perception of autonomy is independent of how the robot works. One might expect people to automatically see the robot as a utility, but instead they tended to consider it a suitable mascot.

Keywords

Communication robots Social robots Robots in public place Qualitative study 

Supplementary material

12369_2015_332_MOESM1_ESM.txt (4 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (txt 3 KB)
12369_2015_332_MOESM2_ESM.cls (47 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (cls 46 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Burgard W et al (1998) The interactive museum tour-guide robot. In: National conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI1998). pp 11–18Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Interactive humanoid robots for a science museum. IEEE Intell Syst 22:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thrun S et al (1999) Minerva: a second-generation museum tour-guide robot. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA1999). pp 1999–2005Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siegwart R et al (2003) Robox at Expo. 02: a large scale installation of personal robots. Robot Auton Syst 42:203–222CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gockley R et al (2005) Designing robots for long-term social interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS2005). pp 1338–1343Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gross H-M et al (2008) Shopbot: progress in developing an interactive mobile shopping assistant for everyday use. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC2008). pp 3471–3478Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pineau J, Montemerlo M, Pollack M, Roy N, Thrun S (2003) Towards robotic assistants in nursing homes: challenges and results. Robot Auton Syst 42:271–281CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mazzolai B et al (2008) Networked and cooperating robots for urban hygiene: the eu funded dustbot project. In: The 5th international conference on ubiquitous robots and ambient intelligence (URAI 2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferri G et al (2011) Dustcart, an autonomous robot for door-to-door garbage collection: from dustbot project to the experimentation in the small town of Peccioli. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA2011). pp 655–660Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mutlu B, Forlizzi J (2008) Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human–robot interaction. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI2008). pp 287–294Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iwamura Y, Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2011) Do Elderly people prefer a conversational humanoid as a shopping assistant partner in supermarkets? In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI2011). pp 449–456Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weiss A et al (2010) Robots asking for directions: the willingness of passers-by to support robots. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI2010). pp 23–30Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heerink M, Kröse B, Wielinga B, Evers V (2008) Enjoyment, intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI2008). pp 113–120Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. Int J Soc Robot 2:361–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Kamide H et al (2012) New measurement of psychological safety for humanoid. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 49–56Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahn PH Jr et al (2012) Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now: children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev Psychol 48:303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interact Stud 7:437–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steinfeld A et al (2006) Common metrics for human–robot interaction. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI2006). pp 33–40Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Forlizzi J (2007) How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI2007). pp 129–136Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee MK, Kiesler S, Forlizzi J, Rybski P (2012) Ripple effects of an embedded social agent : a field study of a social robot in the workplace. In: ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI2012). pp 695–704Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sabelli AM, Kanda T, Hagita N (2011) A conversational robot in an elderly care center: an ethnographic study. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI2011). pp 37–44Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Imai M, Ono T (2004) Development and evaluation of interactive humanoid robots. Proc IEEE 92:1839–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morales Y, Kanda T, Hagita N (2014) Walking together: side by side walking model for an interacting robot. J Hum Robot Interact 3:51–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zheng K, Glas DF, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2011) How many social robots can one operator control? In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI 2011). Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 379–386Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Glas DF et al (2012) The network robot system: enabling social human–robot interaction in public spaces. J Hum Robot Interact 1:5–32Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Glaser BG, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine DeGruyter, HawthorneGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gibson B, Hartman J (2013) Rediscovering grounded theory. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tolhurst E (2012) Grounded theory method: sociology’s quest for exclusive items of inquiry. In: Forum Qual Sozialforschung Forum Qual Soc Res 13(3)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C (2006) Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI2006). pp 258–265Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sung J, Grinter RE, Christensen HI (2010) Domestic robot ecology. Int J Soc Robot 2:417–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML, Otero NR (2010) Exploring human mental models of robots through explicitation interviews. In: RO-MAN, 2010 IEEE. IEEE, pp 638–645Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yanco HA et al (2015) Analysis of human–robot interaction at the DARPA Robotics Challenge Trials. J Field Robot 32:420–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huber A, Lammer L, Weiss A, Vincze M (2014) Designing adaptive roles for socially assistive robots: a new method to reduce technological determinism and role stereotypes. J Hum Robot Interact 3:100–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International IRCKeihanna Science CityJapan

Personalised recommendations