Intelligent Service Robotics

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 199–210 | Cite as

Effects of etiquette strategy on human–robot interaction in a simulated medicine delivery task

Original Research Paper

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine the extent to which a model of linguistic etiquette in human–human interaction could be applied to human–robot interaction (HRI) domain, and how different etiquette strategies proposed through the model might influence performance of humans and robots as mediated by manipulations of robot physical features, in a simulated medicine delivery task. A “wizard of Oz” experiment was conducted in which either a humanoid robot or a mechanical-looking robot was used to present medicine reminding utterances (following different etiquette strategies) to participants, who were engaged in a primary cognitive task (a Sudoku puzzle). Results revealed the etiquette model to partially extend to the HRI domain. Participants were not sensitive to positive language from robots (e.g., appreciation of human values/wants) and such a strategy did not succeed in supporting or enhancing the “positive face” of human users. Both “bald” (no linguistic courtesy) and mixed strategies (positive and “negative face” (minimizing user imposition) saving) resulted in moderate user perceived etiquette scores (PE). However, individual differences suggested such robot linguistic strategies should be applied with caution. Opposite to this, a negative face saving strategy (supporting user freedom of choice) promoted user task and robot performance (in terms of user response time to robot requests), and resulted in the highest PE score. There was also evidence that humanoid robot features provide additional social cues that may be used by patients and support human and robot performance, but not PE. These results provide a basis for determining appropriate etiquette strategies and robot appearance to promote better collaborative task performances for future health care delivery applications of service robots.

Keywords

Human–robot etiquette Patient–robot interaction Medicine delivery Patient compliance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Goodin HJ (2003) The nursing shortage in the United States of America: an integrative review of the literature. J Adv Nurs 43: 335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rogers AE, Hwang WT, Scott LD, Aiken LH, Dinges DF (2004) The working hours of hospital staff nurses and patient safety. Health Aff 23: 202–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krishnamurthy B, Evans J (1992) HelpMate: A robotic courier for hospital use. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, pp 1630-1634Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pollack ME, Brown L, Colbry D, Orosz C, Peintner B, Ramakrishnan S, Engberg S, Matthews JT, Dunbar-Jacob J, McCarthy CE, Thrun S, Montemerlo M, Pineau J, Roy N (2002) Pearl: a mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. In: Proceedings of the AAAI workshop on automation as eldercareGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Park HK, Hong HS, Kwon HJ, Chung MJ (2001) A Nursing robot system for the elderly and the disabled. Int J Human-friendly Welf Robotic Syst (HWRS) 2: 11–16Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang T, Zhu B, Lee L, Kaber DB (2008) Service robot anthropomorphism and interface design for emotion in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on automation science and engineering (CASE), pp 674–679Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang T, Zhu B, Kaber DB (2010) Anthropomorphism in robots and human etiquette expectations for interaction. In: Hayes C, Miller C (eds) Human-computer etiquette. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller CA (2002) Definitions and dimensions of etiquette.Technical Report FS-02-02, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. Menlo Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hayes C, Pande A, Miller CA (2002) Etiquette in human computer interaction: what does it mean for a computer to be polite? or who needs polite computers anyway? Technical Report FS-02-02. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Whitworth B (2005) Polite computing. Behav Inf Technol 24: 353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parasuraman R, Miller CA (2004) Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Commun Assoc Comput Mach 47: 51–55Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miller CA, Funk HB (2001) Associates with etiquette: meta-communication to make human-automation interaction more natural, productive and polite. In: Proceedings of the 8th european conference on cognitive science approaches to process control, pp 24–26Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breazeal C (2004) Social interactions in HRI: the robot view. IEEE Trans Man Cybern Syst 32: 181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nass C (2004) Etiquette equality exhibitions and expectations of computer politeness. ACM Press, New York, pp 35–37Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang T, Zhu B, Lee L, Swangnetr M, Mosaly P, Kaber DB (2009) Service robot feature and interface design effects on user emotional responses. In: Proceedings of the 17th triennial congress of the international ergonomics association (IEA), Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown P, Levinson SC (1987) Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goffman E (2005) Ritual interaction: essays on face-to-face behavior. Aldine Publishing Co., New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang N, Johnson WL, Rizzo P, Shaw E, Mayer RE (2005) Experimental evaluation of polite interaction tactics for pedagogical agents. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, pp 12–19Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mayer RE, Johnson WL, Shaw E, Sandhu S (2006) Constructing computer-based tutors that are socially sensitive: Politeness in educational software. Int J Human Comput Stud 64: 36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilkie J, Jack MA, Littlewood PJ (2005) System-initiated digressive proposals in automated human-computer telephone dialogues: the use of contrasting politeness strategies. Int J Human Comput Stud 62: 41–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller CA, Wu P, Chapman M (2004) The role of “Etiquette” in an automated medication reminder. In: Proceedings of the 19th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nass C, Moon Y, Green N (1997) Are computers gender-neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. J Appl Soc Psychol 27: 864–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nass C, Fogg BJ, Moon Y (1996) Can computers be teammates?. Int J Human Comput Stud 45: 669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moon Y (2000) Intimate exchanges: using computers to elicit self-disclosure consumers. J Consum Res 26: 323–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. Mindfulness Theory Soc Issues 56: 81–103Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nass C, Moon Y, Carney P (1999) Are respondents polite to computers? Social desirability and direct responses to computers. J Appl Soc Psychol 29: 1093–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fogg BJ, Nass C (1997) Do users reciprocate to computers? In: Proceedings of the CHI conference (Atlanta, GA), Association of Computing Machinery, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hinds PJ, Roberts TL, Jones H (2004) Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human Comput Interact 19: 151–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kanda T, Miyashita T, Osada T, Haikawa Y, Ishiguro H (2008) Analysis of humanoid appearances in human robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robotics 24: 725–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boekhorst R, Walters ML, Kheng Lee Koay, Dautenhahn K, Nehaniv CL (2005) A study of a single robot interacting with groups of children in a rotation game scenario. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on computational intelligence in robotics and automation (CIRA), pp 35–40Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN), pp 55–60Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    DiSalvo CF, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: Proceedings of the fourth conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, pp 321–326Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, Boekhorst R, Kheng Lee Koay, Kaouri C, Woods S, Nehaniv C, Lee D, Werry I (2005) The influence of subjects’ personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN), pp 347–352Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Walters ML, Dautenhahn K,Woods SN, Koay KL (2007) Robotic etiquette: results from user studies involving a fetch and carry task. In: Proceedings of the second ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 317–32Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang T, Zhu B, Kaber DB (2010) Anthropomorphism in Robots and Human Etiquette Expectations for Interaction. In: Hayes C, Miller C (eds) Human-computer etiquette. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang T, Kaber DB, Zhu B, Swangnetr M, Hodge L, Mosaly P (2010) Service robot feature design effects on user perceptions and emotional responses. Int J Intell Serv Robotics 3(2): 73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Edward P. Fitts Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations