Can We Keep Him Forever? Teens’ Engagement and Desire for Emotional Connection with a Social Robot

  • Elin A. BjörlingEmail author
  • Emma Rose
  • Andrew Davidson
  • Rachel Ren
  • Dorothy Wong


Today’s teens will most likely be the first generation to spend a lifetime living and interacting with both mechanical and social robots. Although human–robot interaction has been explored in children, adults, and seniors, examination of teen–robot interaction has been limited. In this paper, we provide evidence that teen–robot interaction is a unique area of inquiry and designing for teens is categorically different from other types of human–robot interaction. Using human-centered design, our team is developing a social robot to gather stress and mood data from teens in a public high school. To better understand teen–robot interaction, we conducted an interaction study in the wild to explore and capture teens’ interactions with a low-fidelity social robot prototype. Then, through group interviews we gathered data regarding their perceptions about social robots. Although we anticipated minimal engagement due to the low fidelity of our prototype, teens showed strong engagement and lengthy interactions. Additionally, teens expressed thoughtful articulations of how a social robot could be emotionally supportive. We conclude the paper by discussing future areas for consideration when designing for teen–robot interaction.


Teen–robot interaction Engagement Prototype Human-centered design 



Thank you to all the teens who participated in our research and to our wonderful graduate and undergraduate students who engaged in Project EMAR for year 1.


This study was funded in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NRI-1734100.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Davies C, Eynon R (2013) Teenagers and technology (adolescence and society). Taylor and FrancisGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lenhart A (2015) Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, 2015. Accessed 10 Sept 2017
  3. 3.
    Spies Shapiro LA, Margolin G (2014) Growing up wired: social networking sites and adolescent psychosocial development. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 17(1):1–18Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitton D, Little L, Bell BT (2016) Introduction: HCI reaches adolescence. In: Little L, Fitton D, Bell B, Toth N (eds) Perspectives on HCI research with teens. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N, Ishiguro H (2007) A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):962–971Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim ES et al (2013) Social robots as embedded reinforcers of social behavior in children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord 43(5):1038–1049Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Billard A (2005) Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? Univ Access Inf Soc 4(2):105–120Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Collins C, Duckworth D, Henkel Z, Wuisan S, Bethel CL (2015) Therabot™. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction extended abstracts: HRI’15 extended abstracts, pp 307–307Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Severinson-Eklundh K, Green A, Hüttenrauch H (2003) Social and collaborative aspects of interaction with a service robot. Robot Auton Syst 42:223–234zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sabelli AM, Kanda T, Hagita N (2011) A conversational robot in an elderly care center. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’11, p 37Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wada K, Shibata T (2007) Living with seal robots—its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):972–980Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scassellati B, Admoni H, Matari M (2012) Robots for use in autism research. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 14:275–294Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robinson H, MacDonald B, Kerse N, Broadbent E (2013) The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 14(9):661–667Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jøranson N, Pedersen I, Rokstad AMM, Ihlebæk C (2015) Effects on symptoms of agitation and depression in persons with dementia participating in robot-assisted activity: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 16(10):867–873Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    American Psychological Association (2015) Stress in America: paying with our health. Accessed 21 Mar 2016
  16. 16.
    Nardi B, Francesconi G, Catena-Dell’Osso M, Bellantuono C (2013) Adolescent depression: clinical features and therapeutic strategies. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 17(11):1546–1551Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    American Psychological Association. (2014). Stress in America: Are teens adopting adults’ stress habits. Stress in America Surveys.
  18. 18.
    Young CC, Dietrich MS (2015) Stressful life events, worry, and rumination predict depressive and anxiety symptoms in young adolescents. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs 28(1):35–42Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kolb B, Gibb R (2011) Brain plasticity and behaviour in the developing brain. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 20(4):265–276Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steinberg L (2014) Age of opportunity: lessons from the new science of adolescence. Houghton Mifflin HarcourtGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zimmerman C (2000) The development of scientific reasoning skills. Dev Rev 20(1):99–149Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanders RA (2013) Adolescent psychosocial, social, and cognitive development. Pediatr Rev 34(8):354–358 (quiz 358–359) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zimmermann BJ, Cleary TJ (2006) Adolescents’ development of personal agency. Self-efficacy Beliefs Adolesc 5:45–69Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McEwen BS, Morrison JH (2013) The brain on stress: vulnerability and plasticity of the prefrontal cortex over the life course. Neuron 79(1):16–29Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eiland L, Romeo RD (2013) Stress and the developing adolescent brain. Neuroscience 249(212):162–171Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henje-Blom E et al (2015) The neuroscience and context of adolescent depression. Acta Paediatr 105(4):358–365Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamilton JL, Stange JP, Abramson LY, Alloy LB (2015) Stress and the development of cognitive vulnerabilities to depression explain sex differences in depressive symptoms during adolescence. Clin Psychol Sci J Assoc Psychol Sci 3(5):702–714Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leonard NR et al (2015) A multi-method exploratory study of stress, coping, and substance use among high school youth in private schools. Front Psychol 6:1028Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Funke R, Eichler A, Distler J, Golub Y, Kratz O, Moll GH (2017) Stress system dysregulation in pediatric generalized anxiety disorder associated with comorbid depression. Stress Health 33:518–529Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Patel V et al (2007) Mental health of young people: a global public-health challenge. Lancet 369(9569):1302–1313Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Szabó M (2010) The short version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): factor structure in a young adolescent sample. J Adolesc 1(33):1–8Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scrimin S, Mason L, Moscardino U (2014) School-related stress and cognitive performance: a mood-induction study. Contemp Educ Psychol 39(4):359–368Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roozendaal B, McEwen BS, Chattarji S (2009) Stress, memory and the amygdala. Nat Rev Neurosci 10(6):423–433Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    O’Reilly E, McNeill KG, Mavor KI, Anderson K (2014) Looking beyond personal stressors: an examination of how academic stressors contribute to depression in Australian graduate medical students. Teach Learn Med 26(1):56–63Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vogel S, Schwabe L (2016) Learning and memory under stress: implications for the classroom. npj Sci Learn 1:16011Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cornwell P (2016) Schools create moments of calm for stressed-out students. Seattle Times, Seattle, 10-Dec-2016Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lenhart A (2015) Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, 2015Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Little L, Fitton D, Bell BT, Toth N (2016) Perspectives on HCI research with teenagers. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fitton D, Read JCC, Horton M (2013) The challenge of working with teens as participants in interaction design. In: CHI’13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI EA’13, p 205Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Swift-Spong K, Wen CKF, Spruijt-Metz D, Mataric MJ (2016) Comparing backstories of a socially assistive robot exercise buddy for adolescent youth. In: 2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 1013–1018Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu EZ-FF (2010) Early adolescents’ perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics. Br J Educ Technol 41(3):E44–E47Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sequeira J, Ferreira I (2014) The concept of [robot] in children and teens. Int J Signs Semiot Syst (IJSSS) 3(2):43–57Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bainbridge WA, Hart JW, Kim ES, Scassellati B (2011) The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int J Soc Robot 3(1):41–52Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Martelaro N, Nneji VC, Ju W, Hinds P (2016) Tell me more: designing HRI to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, vol 2016, pp 181–188Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rose EJ, Björling EA (2017) Designing for engagement. In: Proceedings of the 35th ACM international conference on the design of communication—SIGDOC’17, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lenhart A, Ling R, Campbell S, Purcell K (2010) Teens and mobile phones. Pew Internet Am Life Proj 20:1–94Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Trapl ES et al (2005) Use of audio-enhanced personal digital assistants for school-based data collection. J Adolesc Health 37(4):296–305Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Minnis AM, Padian NS (2001) Reliability of adolescents’ self-reported sexual behavior: a comparison of two diary methodologies. J Adolesc Health 28(5):394–403Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chung M, Pronobis A, Cakmak M, Fox D, Rao RPN (2015) Exploring the potential of information gathering robots. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction extended abstracts, pp 29–30Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Huang J, Lau T (2016) Design and evaluation of a rapid programming system for service robots. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 295–302Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):143–166zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Leite I, Martinho C, Paiva A (2013) Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):291–308Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Breazeal C (2011) Social robots for health applications. In: 2011 Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society, pp 5368–5371Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Scassellati B (2007) How social robots will help us to diagnose, treat, and understand autism. In: Thrun S, Brooks R, Durrant-Whyte H (eds) Robotics research. Springer, Berlin, pp 552–563Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Abdel-Salam S, Gunter WD (2014) Therapeutic engagement as a predictor of retention in adolescent therapeutic community treatment. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse 23(1):49–57Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Seed M, Juarez M, Alnatour R (2009) Improving recruitment and retention rates in preventive longitudinal research with adolescent mothers. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs 22(3):150–153Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wood LJ, Dautenhahn K, Rainer A, Robins B, Lehmann H, Syrdal DS (2013) Robot-mediated interviews—how effective is a humanoid robot as a tool for interviewing young children? PLoS ONE 8(3):e59448Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Runyan JD, Steinke EG (2015) Virtues, ecological momentary assessment/intervention and smartphone technology. Front Psychol 6:481Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Dunton G, Dzubur E, Li M, Huh J, Intille S, McConnell R (2016) Momentary assessment of psychosocial stressors, context, and asthma symptoms in hispanic adolescents. Behav Modif 40(1–2):257–280Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Khor AS, Gray KM, Reid SC, Melvin GA (2014) Feasibility and validity of ecological momentary assessment in adolescents with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s disorder. J Adolesc 37(1):37–46Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Björling EA, Singh N (2016) Exploring temporal patterns of stress in adolescent girls with headache. Stress Health 33(1):69–79Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tan PZ et al (2012) Emotional reactivity and regulation in anxious and nonanxious youth: a cell-phone ecological momentary assessment study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 53(2):197–206MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Heron K, Smyth, JM, Bergen-Cico D, Carey M, Ewart C, Maisto, S Newman L (2011) Ecological momentary intervention (EMI): incorporating mobile technology into a disordered eating treatment program for college women. ProQuest dissertations and thesesGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pramana G, Parmanto B, Kendall PC, Silk JS (2014) The SmartCAT: an m-health platform for ecological momentary intervention in child anxiety treatment. Telemed e-Health 20(5):419–427Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Björling EA, Rose EJ (2019) Participatory research principles in human-centered design: engaging teens in the co-design of a social robot. Multimodal Technol Interact 3(1):8Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Brumby DP, Blandford A, Cox AL, Gould SJJ, Marshall P (2017) Understanding people. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems—CHI EA’17, pp 1170–1173Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wright P, McCarthy J (2008) Empathy and experience in HCI. In: Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI’08, p 637Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Millen DR (2000) Rapid ethnography. In: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems processes, practices, methods, and techniques—DIS’00, pp 280–286Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rose EJ, Björling EA (2017) Designing for engagement: using participatory design to develop a social robot to measure teen stress. In: Proceedings of 35th ACM international conference on the design of communication—SIGDOC’17, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Björling EA, Rose E, Ren R (2018) Teen–robot interaction: a pilot study of engagement with a low-fidelity prototype. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 69–70Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Giacomin J (2014) What is human centred design? Des J 17(4):606–623MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Krippendorff K (2004) Intrinsic motivation and human-centered design. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 5(1):43–72Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Maguire M (2001) Methods to support human-centred design. Int J Hum Comput Stud 55(4):587–634zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sabanovic S, Michalowski MP, Simmons R (2006) Robots in the wild: Observing human–robot social interaction outside the lab. In: International workshop on advanced motion control, vol 2006. AMC, pp 576–581Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Chang WL, Sabanovic S, Huber L (2014) Observational study of naturalistic interactions with the socially assistive robot PARO in a nursing home. In: IEEE RO-MAN 2014—23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication: human–robot co-existence: adaptive interfaces and systems for daily life, therapy, assistance and socially engaging interactions, pp 294–299Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Forlizzi J (2007) How robotic products become social products. In: Proceeding of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’07, p 129Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2012) Modelling empathic behaviour in a robotic game companion for children. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI’12, p 367Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Broadbent E et al (2012) Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australas J Ageing 31(2):115–120Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Gould JD, Lewis C (1985) Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun ACM 28(3):300–311Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Turns J, Ramey J (2006) Active and collaborative learning in the practice of research: credit-based directed credit-based directed research groups. Tech Commun 53175118(3):296–307Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Larson J, Birge C, Huang Y-M, Sattler B, Turns J, Yellin JMH (2009) Society for technical communication directed research groups as a means of training students to become technica. Source Tech Commun 5695104(2):172–177Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E (2006) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods 5(1):80–92Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Asada M (2015) Development of artificial empathy. Neurosci Res 90:41–50Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2014) Empathic robots for long-term interaction: evaluating social presence, engagement and perceived support in children. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):329–341Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Breazeal CL (2002) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Beran TN, Ramirez-Serrano A, Kuzyk R, Fior M, Nugent S (2011) Understanding how children understand robots: perceived animism in childrobot interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 69(7–8):539–550Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):177–190zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Asada M (2014) Towards artificial empathy. Int J Soc Robot 7(1):19–33Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Konrath SH, O’brien EH, Hsing C (2011) Changes in dispositional empathy in american college students over time: a meta-analysis. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 15(2):180–198Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    McGivern RF, Andersen J, Byrd D, Mutter KL, Reilly J (2002) Cognitive efficiency on a match to sample task decreases at the onset of puberty in children. Brain Cognit 50(1):73–89Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wiklund M, Malmgren-Olsson E-B, Ohman A, Bergström E, Fjellman-Wiklund A (2012) Subjective health complaints in older adolescents are related to perceived stress, anxiety and gender—a cross-sectional school study in Northern Sweden. BMC Public Health 12:993Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kidger J, Donovan JL, Biddle L, Campbell R, Gunnell D (2009) Supporting adolescent emotional health in schools: a mixed methods study of student and staff views in England. BMC Public Health 9(1):403Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Kann L, Brener ND, Warren CW, Collins JL, Giovino GA (2002) An assessment of the effect of data collection setting on the prevalence of health risk behaviors among adolescents. J Adolesc Health 31(4):327–335Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Fitzpatrick KK, Darcy A, Vierhile M (2017) Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Ment Health 4(2):e19Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Turkle S, Taggart W, Kidd CD, Dasté O (2006) Relational artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship. Connect Sci 18(4):347–361Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Sung J, Christensen HI, Grinter RE (2009) Robots in the wild: understanding long-term use. In: 2009 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 45–52Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Fernaeus Y, Håkansson M, Jacobsson M, Ljungblad S (2010) How do you play with a robotic toy animal? In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’10, p 39Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Gockley R et al (2005) Designing robots for long-term social interaction. In: 2005 IEEE/rsj international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 2199–2204Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Tanaka F, Suzuki H (2004, September) Dance interaction with QRIO: a case study for non-boring interaction by using an entrainment ensemble model. In: RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (IEEE Catalog No. 04TH8759). IEEE, pp 419–424Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.University of Washington TacomaTacomaUSA

Personalised recommendations