Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Robots’ Unintentional Metacommunication Affects Human–Robot Interactions. A Systemic Approach

  • S.I. : Artificial Speakers - Philosophical Questions and Implications
  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we theoretically address the relevance of unintentional and inconsistent interactional elements in human–robot interactions. We argue that elements failing, or poorly succeeding, to reproduce a humanlike interaction create significant consequences in human–robot relational patterns and may affect human–human relations. When considering social interactions as systems, the absence of a precise interactional element produces a general reshaping of the interactional pattern, eventually generating new types of interactional settings. As an instance of this dynamic, we study the absence of metacommunicative abilities in social artifacts. Then, we analyze the pragmatic consequences of the aforementioned absence through the lens of Paul Watzlawick’s interactionist theory. We suggest that a fixed complementary interactional setting may be produced because of the asymmetric understanding, between robots and humans, of metacommunication. We highlight the psychological implications of this interactional asymmetry within Jessica Benjamin’s concept of “mutual recognition”. Finally, we point out the possible shift of dysfunctional interactional patterns from human–robot interactions to human–human ones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. By “relational setting” we mean the set of assumptions that govern the behaviors and expectations of the actors in an interaction. For example, humans have a different relational setting toward animals, since they do not expect to be understood by animals beyond a certain limit. In human–human interaction, different relational settings can be put in place depending, for example, on the degree of confidence. For example, with a partner one might enter directly into the intimate zone of proxemics, while with a stranger one should remain in the personal or social zone. The relational setting is strictly intertwined with the interactional patterns enacted in a relation, as we will discuss later.

  2. For a more in-depth definition of metacommunication, please see Watzlawick et al. (2011) and Selvini-Palazzoli and Boscolo (1994). In the systemic-interactionist theory, metacommunication is the level of communication describing the relation between the interlocutors. In chapter 3 we will discuss in depth this definition.

  3. Watzlawick et al. (2011, pp. 187–229) writes about this point in a chapter summarizing “communication failures” due to communicative misunderstanding, involving a discussion on the role of metacommunication in humorous sentences.

  4. This paper is not a theoretical discussion of applications of systemic interactionism. Better examples can be found in Watzlawick et al. (2011) and Selvini-Palazzoli & Boscolo (1994).

  5. A situation where none of the participants to the interaction accepts definitions given by others.

References

  • Baker, A. L., Phillips, E. K., Ullman, D., & Keebler, J. R. (2018). Toward an understanding of trust repair in human-robot interaction: Current research and future directions. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 8(4), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartneck, C., Belpaeme, T., Eyssel, F., Kanda, T., Keijsers, M., & Šabanović, S. (2020a). Human-robot interaction: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bartneck, C., Belpaeme, T., Eyssel, F., Kanda, T., Keijsers, M., & Šabanović, S. (2020b). Nonverbal interaction. Human-Robot Interaction, 9781108735, 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108676649.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, J. (2013). The bonds of love: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and the problem of domination. Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, J. (2017). Beyond doer and done to: Recognition theory, intersubjectivity and the third. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315437699

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bisconti Lucidi, P., & Nardi, D. (2018). Companion robots: The hallucinatory danger of human-robot interactions. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 17–22). https://doi.org/10.1145/3278721.3278741

  • Briggs, G., & Scheutz, M. (2016). The pragmatic social robot: Toward socially-sensitive utterance generation in human-robot interactions. In 2016 AAAI Fall Symposium Series

  • Brinck, I., & Balkenius, C. (2020). Mutual recognition in human-robot interaction: A deflationary account. Philosophy & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0339-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M., Woods, S., Koay, K. L., Nehaniv, C. L., Sisbot, A., Alami, R., & Siméon, T. (2006). How may I serve you? A robot companion approaching a seated person in a helping context. Proceeding of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI ’06, April 2005, 172. https://doi.org/10.1145/1121241.1121272

  • Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Erden, M. S. (2013). Emotional postures for the humanoid-robot nao. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5, 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0200-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegel, G. W. F., & Inwood, M. (2018). Hegel: The phenomenology of spirit. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, B. (2018). Voluntary submission as a dark side of adaptive preference. The contribution of relational psychoanalysis to political philosophy. Soft Power, 09, 99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Mit Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingamells, D. (1993). Systemic approaches to psychosis; part II—systemic psychotherapy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 14(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1467-8438.1993.tb00946.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivaldi, S., Lefort, S., Peters, J., Chetouani, M., Provasi, J., & Zibetti, E. (2017). Towards engagement models that consider individual factors in HRI: On the relation of extroversion and negative attitude towards robots to gaze and speech during a human-robot assembly task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9, 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0357-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, B., & Kopp, S. (2003). FlurMax: An interactive virtual agent for entertaining visitors in a hallway. In T. Rist, R. S. Aylett, D. Ballin, & J. Rickel (Eds.), IVA 2003 LNCS (LNAI) (Vol. 2792, pp. 23–26). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39396-2_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kätsyri, J., Förger, K., Mäkäräinen, M., & Takala, T. (2015). A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: Support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, S., Powers, A., Fussell, S. R., & Torrey, C. (2008). Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot–like agent. Social Cognition, 26(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kojève, A. (1980). Introduction to the reading of hegel. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konok, V., Korcsok, B., Miklósi, Á., & Gácsi, M. (2018). Should we love robots?—the most liked qualities of companion dogs and how they can be implemented in social robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, N. C., Eimler, S., von der Pütten, A., & Payr, S. (2011). Theory of companions: What can theoretical models contribute to applications and understanding of human-robot interaction? Applied Artificial Intelligence, 25(6), 474–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2011.587153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, N. C., von der Pütten, A., & Eimler, S. (2012). Human-agent and human-robot interaction theory: Similarities to and differences from human-human interaction. Human-computer interaction: The agency perspective (pp. 215–240). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25691-2_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Luria, M., Reig, S., Tan, X. Z., Steinfeld, A., Forlizzi, J., & Zimmerman, J. (2019). Re-embodiment and co-embodiment: Exploration of social presence for robots and conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 633–644). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322340

  • Molina, R., & Jennings, F. (2018). The role of civility and metacommunication in Facebook discussions. Communication Studies, 69, 42–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumm, J., & Mutlu, B. (2011). Human-robot proxemics: Physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. In HRI 2011—Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 331–338). https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957786

  • Mutlu, B., Yamaoka, F., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2009). Nonverbal leakage in robots: Communication of intentions through seemingly unintentional behavior. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction (pp. 69–76).

  • Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kato, K. (2004). Psychology in human-robot communication: An attempt through investigation of negative attitudes and anxiety toward robots. In RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 35–40). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374726

  • Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Yamada, S. (2019). Do people with social anxiety feel anxious about interacting with a robot? Ai & Society, 35, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plurkowski, L., Chu, M., & Vinkhuyzen, E. (2011). The implications of interactional “Repair” for human-robot interaction design. 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (Vol. 3, pp. 61–65). IEEE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal-Von Der Pütten, A. M., Schulte, F. P., Eimler, S. C., Sobieraj, S., Hoffmann, L., Maderwald, S., Brand, M., & Krämer, N. C. (2014). Investigations on empathy towards humans and robots using fMRI. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. (1951). Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. W. W. Norton & Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satake, S., Kanda, T., Glas, D. F., Imai, M., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2009). How to approach humans? In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction - HRI ’09. New York, USA: ACM Press.

  • Saunderson, S., & Nejat, G. (2019). How robots influence humans: A survey of nonverbal communication in social human-robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11, 575–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00523-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scassellati, B. (1998). Imitation and mechanisms of joint attention: A developmental structure for building social skills on a humanoid robot. International Workshop on Computation for Metaphors, Analogy, and Agents (pp. 176–195). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48834-0_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schneier, F. R., Rodebaugh, T. L., Blanco, C., Lewin, H., & Liebowitz, M. R. (2011). Fear and avoidance of eye contact in social anxiety disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 52(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2010.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebo, S. S., Krishnamurthi, P., & Scassellati, B. (2019). “I don’t believe you”: Investigating the effects of robot trust violation and repair. 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 57–65). IEEE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Seibt, J. (2014). Varieties of the ‘As If’: Five ways to simulate an action. Sociable robots and the future of social relations: Proceedings of robo-philosophy 2014 (Vol. 273, pp. 97–104). Ios Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibt, J. (2016). “Integrative Social Robotics”-A new method paradigm to solve the description problem and the regulation problem?. In Robophilosophy/TRANSOR (pp. 104–115)

  • Seibt, J. (2017). Towards an ontology of simulated social interaction: varieties of the “As If” for robots and humans. Sociality and normativity for robots (pp. 11–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53133-5_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Seibt, J., Vestergaard, C., & Damholdt, M. F. (2021). Sociomorphing, not anthropomorphizing: Towards a typology of experienced sociality. Culturally Sustainable Social Robotics: Proceedings of Robophilosophy, 2020(335), 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Cirillo, S., Selvini, M., & Sorrentino, A. M. (1988). I giochi psicotici nella famiglia. Cortina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvini-Palazzoli, M. S., & Boscolo, L. (1994). Paradox and counterparadox: A new model in the therapy of the family in schizophrenic transaction. Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serholt, S. (2018). Breakdowns in children’s interactions with a robotic tutor: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibata, T., Tashima, T., & Tanie, K. (1999). Emergence of emotional behavior through physical interaction between human and robot. In Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 99CH36288C) (Vol. 4, pp. 2868–2873). IEEE

  • Sugawara, K. (2009). Speech acts, moves, and meta-communication in negotiation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 93–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Walters, M. L., & Kheng Lee Koay. (2006). “Doing the right thing wrong”—personality and tolerance to uncomfortable robot approaches. ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 183–188). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314415

  • Syrdal, D. S., Koay, K. L., Walters, M. L., Dautenhahn, K. (2007). A personalised robot companion? The role of individual differences on spatial preferences in HRI scenarios. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415252

  • Tinwell, A., & Sloan, R. J. (2014). Children’s perception of uncanny human-like virtual characters. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turkle, S., Taggart, W., Kidd, C. D., & Dasté, O. (2006a). Relational artifacts with children and elders: The complexities of cybercompanionship. Connection Science, 18(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540090600868912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turkle, S., Breazeal, C., Dasté, O., & Scassellati, B. (2006b). Encounters with kismet and cog: Children respond to relational artifacts. Digital media: Transformations in human communication, 120.

  • Van Nijnatten, C. (2006). Meta-communication in institutional talks. Qualitative Social Work, 5, 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, M. L., Dautenhahn, K., Kheng Lee Koay, Kaouri, C., Boekhorst, R., Nehaniv, C., Werry, I., & Lee, D. (2005). Close encounters: spatial distances between people and a robot of mechanistic appearance. 5th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2005., 2005, 450–455. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHR.2005.1573608

  • Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (2011). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, L., & Dennis, A. R. (2019). Acting like humans? Anthropomorphism and consumer’s willingness to pay in electronic commerce. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(2), 450–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019.1598691

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, DIRPOLIS Institute, Piazza dei Martiri della Libertà, 33, Pisa, Italy

    Piercosma Bisconti

Authors
  1. Piercosma Bisconti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piercosma Bisconti.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bisconti, P. How Robots’ Unintentional Metacommunication Affects Human–Robot Interactions. A Systemic Approach. Minds & Machines 31, 487–504 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09584-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09584-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation