Advertisement

Influence of Embodiment and Substrate of Social Robots on Users’ Decision-Making and Attitude

  • Bingcheng Wang
  • Pei-Luen Patrick RauEmail author
Article
  • 99 Downloads

Abstract

We explored decision-making and attitudes from humans toward robots with different embodiments and substrates. Specifically, four types of robots were compared through experiments, namely, a virtual reality robot, an augmented reality robot, a physical robot, and a physical but tele-present robot that was displayed on a screen. For the experiments, 60 participants were divided into four groups to answer ten questions, and the robots provided advice about each question. Then, the participants chose whether to take the advice and their initial and final choices were registered. We measured each participant’s faith, attachment, social presence, and credibility toward the four robots through questionnaires. We found that the physical embodiment is significantly more favored by the participants, whereas the virtual embodiment is the less favored. Moreover, a robot sharing the same substrate as the participant is preferred over one not sharing the same substrate. These findings, their interpretation, and application to robots can lead to improved design and development of social robots.

Keywords

Embodiment Substrate Social robot Human–robot interaction Virtual reality Augmented reality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the National Key Resource and Development Plan under Grant No. 2016YFB1001200-2.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Freund E, Meister A, Roβmann J (1998) Simulation of human avatars in virtual-reality. In: Robotics 98, pp 279–285Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Warpefelt H (2015) Cues and insinuations: indicating affordances of non-player character using visual indicators. In: DiGRA ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moon J (2018) Reviews of social embodiment for design of non-player characters in virtual reality-based social skill training for autistic children. Multimodal Technol Interact 2(3):53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scheier C, Pfeifer R (1999) The embodied cognitive science approach. In: Tschacher W, Dauwalder J-P (eds) Dynamics, synergetics, autonomous agents: nonlinear systems approaches to cognitive psychology and cognitive science. World Scientific, pp 159–179Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li J (2015) The benefit of being physically present: a survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. Int J Hum Comput Stud 77:23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooks D, Chen YP, Howard AM (2015) Simulation versus embodied agents: does either induce better human adherence to physical therapy exercise? In: 2012 4th IEEE RAS and EMBS international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics (BioRob). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thellman S et al (2016) Physical vs. virtual agent embodiment and effects on social interaction. In: International conference on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Milgram P et al (1995) Augmented reality: a class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In: Telemanipulator and telepresence technologies. 1995. International society for optics and photonicsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Breazeal C (2003) Toward sociable robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiesler S et al (2008) Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot–like agent. Soc Cognit 26(2):169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee KM et al (2006) Can robots manifest personality?: an empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human–robot interaction. J Commun 56(4):754–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schultz AC, Goodrich MA (2007) Human–robot interaction: a survey. Found Trends Hum Comput Interact 1(3):203–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rau PLP, Li Y, Liu J (2013) Effects of a social robot’s autonomy and group orientation on human decision-making. Adv Hum–Comput Interact 2013:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wainer J et al (2006) The role of physical embodiment in human–robot interaction. In: The 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2006. ROMAN 2006. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Powers A et al (2007) Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In: Proceeding of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI ‘07Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Looije R, Neerincx MA, Cnossen F (2010) Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: design and evaluation of social behaviors. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68(6):386–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bainbridge WA et al (2010) The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int J Soc Robot 3(1):41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reeves B et al (2003) Robots versus on-screen agents: effects on social and emotional responses. In: CHI 2003Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wainer J et al (2007) Embodiment and human–robot interaction: a task-based perspective. In: The 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2007. RO-MAN 2007. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li J, Chignell M (2011) Communication of emotion in social robots through simple head and arm movements. Int J Soc Robot 3(2):125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Komatsu T et al (2011) Effects of different types of artifacts on interpretations of artificial subtle expressions (ASEs). In: CHI’11 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACMGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shinozawa K et al (2005) Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making. Int J Hum Comput Stud 62(2):267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ju W, Sirkin D (2010) Animate objects: how physical motion encourages public interaction. In: International conference on persuasive technology. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jost C, Le Pévédic B, Duhaut D (2012) Robot is best to play with human! In: RO-MAN, 2012 IEEEGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Komatsu T (2010) Comparison an on-screen agent with a robotic agent in an everyday interaction style: how to make users react toward an on-screen agent as if they are reacting toward a robotic agent. In: Human–robot interaction. InTechGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nomura T, Sasa M (2009) Investigation of differences on impressions of and behaviors toward real and virtual robots between elder people and university students. In: IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, 2009. ICORR 2009. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fasola J, Mataric M (2013) A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. J Hum Robot Interact 2(2):3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lim S, Reeves B (2010) Computer agents versus avatars: responses to interactive game characters controlled by a computer or other player. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68(1–2):57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bailenson JN, Blascovich J (2004) Avatars. In: Encyclopedia of human–computer interaction. Berkshire Publishing Group, CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Łupkowski P, Rybka M, Dziedzic D, Włodarczyk W (2018) The background context condition for the uncanny valley hypothesis. Int J Soc Robot.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0490-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pritchard SC et al (2016) Non-hierarchical influence of visual form, touch, and position cues on embodiment, agency, and presence in virtual reality. Front Psychol 7:1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rau PLP, Li Y, Li D (2009) Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Comput Hum Behav 25(2):587–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T (2005) Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI Soc 20(2):138–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Madsen M, Gregor S (2000) Measuring human–computer trust. In: Proceedings of the 11th Australasian conference on information systemsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fogg B, Tseng H (1999) The elements of computer credibility. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACMGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Riek L (2012) Wizard of Oz studies in HRI: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. J Hum Robot Interact 1:119–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations