Investigating People’s Rapport Building and Hindering Behaviors When Working with a Collaborative Robot

  • Stela H. Seo
  • Keelin Griffin
  • James E. Young
  • Andrea Bunt
  • Susan Prentice
  • Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez
Article

Abstract

Modern industrial robots are increasingly moving toward collaborating with people on complex tasks as team members, and away from working in isolated cages that are separated from people. Collaborative robots are programmed to use social communication techniques with people, enabling human team members to use their existing inter-personal skills to work with robots, such as speech, gestures, or gaze. Research is increasingly investigating how robots can use higher-level social structures such as team dynamics or conflict resolution. One particularly important aspect of human–human teamwork is rapport building: these are everyday social interactions between people that help to develop professional relationships by establishing trust, confidence, and collegiality, but which are formally peripheral to a task at hand. In this paper, we report on our investigations of how and if people apply similar rapport-building behaviors to robot collaborators. First, we synthesized existing human–human rapport knowledge into an initial human–robot interaction framework; this framework includes verbal and non-verbal behaviors, both for rapport building and rapport hindering, that people can be expected to exhibit. We developed a novel mock industrial task scenario that emphasizes ecological validity, and creates a range of social interactions necessary for investigating rapport. Finally, we report on a qualitative study that investigates how people use rapport hindering or building behaviors in our industrial scenario, which reflects how people may interact with robots in industrial settings.

Keywords

Human–robot interaction Social robotics Industrial team-work robots Rapport 

References

  1. 1.
    Ädel A (2011) Rapport building in student group work. J Pragmat 43(12):2932–2947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argyle M (1990) The biological basis of rapport. Psychol Inq 1:297–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basow SA, Rubenfeld K (2003) Troubles talk: effects of gender and gender-typing. Sex Roles 48(3–4):183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernieri FJ, Gillis JS, David JM, Grahe JE (1997) Dyad rapport and the accuracy of its judgmen across situations: a lens model of analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 71(1):110–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bickmore TW, Picard RW (2005) Establishing and maintaining long-term human–computer relationships. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 12(2):293–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bohus D, Horvitz E (2010) Facilitating multiparty dialog with gaze, gesture, and speech. In: International conference on multimodal interfaces and the workshop on machine learning for multimodal interaction on—ICMI-MLMI ’10, p 1Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bronstein L, Nelson N, Livnat Z, Ben-Ari R (2012) Rapport in negotiation: the contribution of the verbal channel. J Confl Resolut 56(6):1089–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cakmak M, Thomaz AL (2012) Designing robot learners that ask good questions. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’12. ACM, p 17Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chao C, Thomaz A (2012) Timing in multimodal turn–taking interactions: control and analysis using timed petri nets. J Hum Robot Interact 1(1):4–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Driskell T, Blickensderfer EL, Salas E (2012) Is three a crowd? Examining rapport in investigative interviews. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 17(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eagerly AH (2009) The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. Am Psychol 34(8):644–658Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eyssel F, Hegel F (2012) (S)he’s got the look: gender stereotyping of robots. J Appl Soc Psychol 42(9):2213–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gratch J, Okhmatovskaia A, Lamothe F et al (2006) Virtual rapport. In: Intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Berlin, pp 14–27Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gratch J, Wang N, Gerten J, Fast E, Duffy R (2007) Creating rapport with virtual agents. In: Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent virtual agents, IVA ’07. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–138Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gremler DD, Gwinner KP (2008) Rapport-building behaviors used by retail employees. J Retail 84(3):308–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haddadi A, Croft EA, Gleeson BT, MacLean K, Alcazar J (2013) Analysis of task-based gestures in human–robot interaction. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, pp 2146–2152Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haferd T (2013) Do I want to work with you in the future? Does status moderate the process by outcome interaction in ongoing workplace relationships? Columbia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hawkins KP, Bansal S, Vo NN, Bobick AF (2014) Anticipating human actions for collaboration in the presence of task and sensor uncertainty. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, ICRA ’14, pp 2215–2222Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hayashi K, Sakamoto D, Kanda T et al (2007) Humanoid robots as a passive-social medium. In: Proceeding of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI ’07. ACM Press, p 137Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoffman G, Breazeal C (2004) Collaboration in human–robot teams. In: Proceedings of the AIAA intelligent systems technical conference, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang C, Mutlu B (2013) Modeling and evaluating narrative gestures for humanlike robots. In: Proceedings of robotics: science and systems, RSS ’13, pp 26–32Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huang L, Morency L, Gratch J (2011) Virtual rapport 2.0. In: Proceedings of ACM international conference on virtual agents. Springer, pp 68–79Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jung MF, Martelaro N, Hinds PJ (2015) Using robots to moderate team conflict. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI ’15. ACM, pp 229–236Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kanda T, Shiomi M, Miyashita Z, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) An affective guide robot in a shopping mall. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI ’09. ACM Press, p 173Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kato Y, Kanda T, Ishiguro H (2015) May I help you? Design of human-like polite approaching behavior. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI ’15. ACM, pp 35–42Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kay R (2006) Addressing gender diffeences in computer ability attitudes and use: the laptop effect. J Educ Comput Res 34:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee M, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2012) Personalization in HRI: a longitudinal field experiment. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’12, pp 319–326Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Melder WA, Truong KP, Uyl MD, Van Leeuwen DA, Neerincx MA, Loos LR, Plum BS (2007) Affective multimodal mirror: sensing and eliciting laughter. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on human-centered multimedia. HCM ’07. ACM, Augsburg, pp 31–40. https://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1290128.1290134
  29. 29.
    Moon AJ, Parker CAC, Croft EA, Van der Loos HFM (2013) Design and impact of hesitation gestures during human–robot resource conflicts. J Hum Robot Interact 2(3):18–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morris M, Venkatesh V, Ackerman P (2006) Gender and age differences in employee decisions about new technology: an extension to the theory of planned behavior. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 51(1):69–84Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morrison RL (2009) Are women tending and befriending in the workplace? Gender differences in the relationship between workplace friendships and organizational outcomes. Sex Roles 60(1–2):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mulac A, Bradac JJ, Gibbons P (2001) Empirical support for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: an intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. Hum Commun Res 27(1):121–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mutlu B, Shiwa T, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) Footing in human–robot conversations. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI ’09. ACM, pp 61–69Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Niculescu A, Dijk B, Nijholt A, Li H, See SL (2013) Making social robots more attractive: the effects of voice pitch, humor and empathy. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):171–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Niculescu A, Van Dijk B, Nijholt A, See SL (2011) The influence of voice pitch on the evaluation of a social robot receptionist. In: Proceedings—2011 international conference on user science and engineering, i-USEr 2011, pp 18–23Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nomura T (2014) Differences of expectation of rapport with robots dependent on situations. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’14, pp 383–389Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nomura T, Kanda T (2013) Measurement of rapport-expectation with a robot. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’13, pp 201–202Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rea DJ, Wang Y, Young JE (2015) Check your stereotypes at the door: an analysis of gender typecasts in social human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of international conference on social robtoics, ICSR ’15. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Reysen S (2005) Construction of a new scale: the Reysen likability scale. Soc Behav Personal 33(2):201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sakamoto D, Ono T (2006) Sociality of robots: do robots construct or collapse human relations? In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI ’06. ACM, pp 355–356Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Seo SH, Geiskkovitch D, Nakane M, King C, Young JE (2015) Poor thing! would you feel sorry for a simulated robot? In: Proceedings of international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI ’15. ACM, pp 125–132Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Seo SH, Gu J, Jeong S et al (2015) Women and men collaborating with robots on assembly lines: designing a novel evaluation scenario for collocated human–robot teamwork. In: Proceedings of ACM international conference on human–agent interaction 2015, HAI ’15. ACMGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shah J, Wiken J, Williams B, Breazeal C (2011) Improved human–robot team performance using chaski, a human-inspired plan execution system. In: Proceedings of the international conference on juman–robot interaction, HRI ’11, pp 29–36Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shibata T, Kawaguchi Y, Wada K (2011) Investigation on people living with seal robot at home. Int J Soc Robot 4(1):53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Short E, Hart J, Vu M, Scassellati B (2010) No fair!! an interaction with a cheating robot. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction 2010, HRI ’10. IEEE, pp 219–226Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Strabala KW, Lee MK, Dragan AD, Forlizzi JL, Srinivasa S, Cakmak M, Micelli V (2013) Towards seamless human-robot handovers. J Hum Robot Interact 2(1):112–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sung J, Guo L, Grinter RE, Christensen HI (2007) “My Rambo Roomba Is”: intimate home appliances. In: UbiComp 2007 ubiquitous computing. Springer, pp 145–162Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tickle-Degnen L, Rosenthal R (1990) The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychol Inq 1(4):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wang Y, Young JE (2014) Beyond “pink” and “blue”: gendered attitudes towards robots in society. In: Gender and IT appropriation. Science and practice on dialogue-forum for interdisciplinary exchange. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies, pp 49–59Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Young JE, Sung J, Voida A et al (2010) Evaluating human–robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 3(1):53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stela H. Seo
    • 1
  • Keelin Griffin
    • 2
  • James E. Young
    • 1
  • Andrea Bunt
    • 1
  • Susan Prentice
    • 2
  • Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations