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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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: 335–343

    Article  Google 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: 202–212

    Article  Google 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 1630-1634

  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 eldercare

  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: 11–16

    Google 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 674–679

  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 231–259

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Miller CA (2002) Definitions and dimensions of etiquette.Technical Report FS-02-02, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. Menlo Park, CA

    Google 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 Park

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Whitworth B (2005) Polite computing. Behav Inf Technol 24: 353–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Parasuraman R, Miller CA (2004) Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Commun Assoc Comput Mach 47: 51–55

    Google 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 24–26

  13. 13

    Breazeal C (2004) Social interactions in HRI: the robot view. IEEE Trans Man Cybern Syst 32: 181–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Nass C (2004) Etiquette equality exhibitions and expectations of computer politeness. ACM Press, New York, pp 35–37

    Google 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, China

  16. 16

    Brown P, Levinson SC (1987) Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Goffman E (2005) Ritual interaction: essays on face-to-face behavior. Aldine Publishing Co., New Jersey

    Google 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 12–19

  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: 36–42

    Article  Google 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: 41–71

    Article  Google 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)

  22. 22

    Nass C, Moon Y, Green N (1997) Are computers gender-neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. J Appl Soc Psychol 27: 864–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Nass C, Fogg BJ, Moon Y (1996) Can computers be teammates?. Int J Human Comput Stud 45: 669–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Moon Y (2000) Intimate exchanges: using computers to elicit self-disclosure consumers. J Consum Res 26: 323–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. Mindfulness Theory Soc Issues 56: 81–103

    Google 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: 1093–1110

    Article  Google 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 York

  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: 151–181

    Article  Google 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: 725–735

    Article  Google 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 35–40

  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 55–60

  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 321–326

  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 347–352

  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 317–32

  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 231–259

    Google 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): 73–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Biwen Zhu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhu, B., Kaber, D. Effects of etiquette strategy on human–robot interaction in a simulated medicine delivery task. Intel Serv Robotics 5, 199–210 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-012-0113-3

Download citation

Keywords

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