Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 171–191 | Cite as

Making Social Robots More Attractive: The Effects of Voice Pitch, Humor and Empathy

  • Andreea NiculescuEmail author
  • Betsy van Dijk
  • Anton Nijholt
  • Haizhou Li
  • Swee Lan See
Article

Abstract

In this paper we explore how simple auditory/verbal features of the spoken language, such as voice characteristics (pitch) and language cues (empathy/humor expression) influence the quality of interaction with a social robot receptionist. For our experiment two robot characters were created: Olivia, the more extrovert, exuberant, and humorous robot with a higher voice pitch and Cynthia, the more introvert, calmer and more serious robot with a lower voice pitch. Our results showed that the voice pitch seemed to have a strong influence on the way users rated the overall interaction quality, as well as the robot’s appeal and overall enjoyment. Further, the humor appeared to improve the users’ perception of task enjoyment, robot personality and speaking style while the empathy showed effects on the way users evaluated the robot’s receptive behavior and the interaction ease. With our study, we would like to stress in particular the importance of voice pitch in human robot interaction and to encourage further research on this topic.

Keywords

Social robots Voice pitch Humor Empathy User studies Quantitative evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to A*STAR Robotics team for their excellent development work on Olivia 4.0 service-robot model. Special thanks to Adrian Tay and Han Boon Siew for their constant help during the experiment, and to Tan Yeow Kee and Brian Ho for acting as wizards during the experiment. We are also grateful to Lynn Packwood for careful proof reading. This work has been supported by the EU’s 7th Framework Program (FP7-ICT-2011.2.1) under grant agreement No. 288235 (FROG).

References

  1. 1.
    Bar-Cohen Y, Hanson D (2009) The coming robot revolution: expectations and fears about emerging intelligent, humanlike machine. Springer, New York Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gockley R, Bruce A, Forlizzi J, Michalowski M, Mundell A, Rosenthal S, Sellner B, Simmons R, Snipes K, Schultz AC, Wang J (2005) Designing robots for long-term social interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ int conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 2199–2204 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee MK, Makatchev M (2009) How do people talk with a robot? An analysis of human-robot dialogues in the real world. In: Proc of CHI, Boston, pp 3769–3774 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Makatchev M, Fanaswala IA, Abdulsalam AA, Browning B, Ghazzawi WM, Sakr M, Simmons R (2010) Dialogue patterns of an Arabic robot receptionist. In: Proc of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, March 2010. ACM/IEEE, New York, pp 167–168 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nass C, Steuer J, Tauber ER (1994) Computers are social actors. In: Proc of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence. ACM, New York, pp 72–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hampes WP (1994) The relation between humor styles and empathy. Eur J Soc Psychol 6(3):34–45 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nass C, Brave S (2005) Wired for speech. How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Traunmueller H, Eriksson A (1994) The frequency range of the voice fundamental in the speech of male and female adults. Manuscript Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Riding D, Lonsdale D, Brown B (2006) The effects of average fundamental frequency and variance of fundamental frequency on male vocal attractiveness to women. J Nonverbal Behav 30:55–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Collins SA, Missing C (2003) Vocal and visual attractiveness are related in women. Anim Behav 65:997–1004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones BC, Feinberg DR, DeBruine LM, Little AC, Vukovi J (2008) Integrating cues of social interest and voice pitch in men’s preferences for women’s voices. Biol Lett 4:192–194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zuckerman M, Miyake K (1993) The attractive voice: what makes it so? J Nonverbal Behav 17(2):119–135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Helfrich H, Weidenbecher P (2011) Impact of voice pitch on text memory. Swiss J Psychol 70(2):85–93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Apple W, Streeter LA, Krauss RM (1979) Effects of pitch and speech rate on personal attributions. J Pers Soc Psychol 37:715–727 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montepare JM, Zebrowitz-McArthur L (1987) Perceptions of adults with childlike voices in two cultures. J Exp Soc Psychol 23:331–349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scherer KR (1979) Personality markers in speech. In: Scherer KR, Giles H (eds) Social markers in speech. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 147–209 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zuckerman M, Miyake K, Elkin CS (1995) Effects of attractiveness and maturity of face and voice on interpersonal impressions. J Res Pers 29:253–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walters ML, Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R (2008) Human approach distances to a mechanical-looking robot with different robot voice styles. In: Proc of 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), München, Germany, pp 707–712 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scheutz M, Schermerhorn P (2009) Affective goal and task selection for social robots. In: Vallverd J, Casacuberta D (eds) The handbook of research on synthetic emotions and sociable robotics. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 74–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martin RA (2007) The psychology of humor: an integrative approach. Elsevier Academic, New York Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilson CP (1979) Jokes: form, content, use and function. Academic Press, London Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cann A, Calhoun LG, Banks JS (1979) On the role of humor appreciation in interpersonal attraction: it’s no joking matter. J Humor Res 10(1):77–89 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hampes WP (1999) The relationship between humor and trust. J Humor Res 12(3):253–259 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Middleton R, Moland J (1959) Humor in negro and white subcultures: a study of jokes among university students. Am Sociol Rev 24:61–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nijholt A (2007) Conversational agents and the construction of humorous acts. In: Nishida T (ed) Conversational informatics: an engineering approach. Wiley, Chicester, pp 21–47 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ziv A (1984) Personality and sense of humor. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roy DF (1960) Banana time: job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organ 18:158–168 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bolman LG, Deal TE (1992) What makes a team work? Organ Dyn 21(2):34–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Clouse RW, Spurgeon KL (1995) Corporate analysis of humor. J Hum Behav 32(3–4):1–24 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ruch W (1994) Extraversion, alcohol, and enjoyment. Pers Individ Differ 16:89–102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kurtzberg TR, Naquin ChE, Belkin LY (2009) Humor as a relationship-building tool in online negotiations. Int J Confl Manage 20(4):377–397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gibson DE (1994) Humor consulting: laughs for power and profit in organizations. Humor 7(4):403–428 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shneiderman B (1998) Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Loehr D (1996) An integration of a pun generator with a natural language robot. In: Proc of the international workshop on computational humor. Twente, The Netherlands, pp 161–172 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tinholt HW, Nijholt A (2007) Computational humour: utilizing cross-reference ambiguity for conversational jokes. In: Masulli F, Mitra S, Pasi G (eds) 7th international workshop on fuzzy logic and applications (WILF 2007), Berlin, July. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 4578. Springer, Berlin, pp 477–483 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Morkes J, Kernal HK, Nass C (1999) Effects of humor in task-oriented human-computer interaction and computer-mediated communication: a direct test of SRCT theory. Hum-Comput Interact 14:395–435 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Huan CM, Szafir D (2001) No joke: examining the use of humor in Computer-mediated learning. http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dszafir/resources/HumorinComputer-MediatedLearning.pdf/. Unpublished material
  38. 38.
    Dybala P, Ptaszynski M, Rzepka R, Araki K (2009) Humoroids: conversational agents that induce positive emotions with humor. In: AAMAS (2), pp 1171–1172 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Babu S, Schmugge S, Barnes T, Hodges LF (2006) What would you like to talk about? An evaluation of social conversations with a virtual receptionist. In: IVA, pp 169–180 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wispe L (1987) History of the concept of empathy. Cambridge University Press, New York Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Goldstein AP, Michaels GY (1985) Empathy: development, training, and consequences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pereira A, Leite I, Mascarenhas S, Martinho S, Paiva A (2010) Using empathy to improve human-robot relationships. In: Lamers MH, Verbeek FJ (eds) Proc of the 3rd international conference on human-robot personal relationships, vol 59. Springer, Berlin, pp 130–138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Brave S, Nass C, Hutchinson K (2005) Computers that care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 62(2):161–178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hone K (2006) Empathic agents to reduce user frustration: the effects of varying agent characteristics. Interact Comput 2(2):227–245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Klein J, Moon Y, Picard RW (2002) This computer responds to user frustration: theory, design, and results. Interact Comput 14(2):119–140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Prendinger H, Mori J, Ishizuka M (2005) Using human physiology to evaluate subtle expressivity of a virtual quizmaster in a mathematical game. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 62(2):231–245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bickmore TW, Schulman D (2007) Practical approaches to comforting users with relational agents. In: CHI extended abstracts’07, pp 2291–2296 Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Partala T, Surakka V (2004) The effects of affective interventions in human-computer interaction. In: Interacting with computers, pp 295–309 Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cramer HSM, Goddijn J, Wielinga BJ, Evers V (2010) Effects of (in)accurate empathy and situational valence on attitudes towards robots. In: Proc of HRI’10, pp 141–142 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ochs M, Pelachaud C, Sadek D (2008) An empathic virtual dialog agent to improve human-machine interaction. In: Proc of AAMAS (1)’08, pp 89–96 Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Evers V, Winterboer A, Pavlin G, Groen FAC (2010) The evaluation of empathy, autonomy and touch to inform the design of an environmental monitoring robot. In: Proc of ICSR’10, pp 285–294 Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hofstede G (1991) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. McGraw-Hill, London Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Craig J (1994) Culture shock! Singapore. Kuperard, London Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Liu Q (2012) Core culture values and beliefs of Singapore. http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ecls/assets/documents/pdf/countryfiles/CCC-Singapore.pdf. Accessed February 7
  55. 55.
    Decker WH, Yao H, Calo TJ (2011) Humor, gender, and perceived leader effectiveness in China. SAM Adv Manag J 76(1):43–53 Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nevo O, Nevo B, Yin LJS (2001) Singaporean humor: a cross-cultural, cross-gender comparison. J Gen Psychol 128(2):143–156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cheon BK, Mathur VA, Chiao JY (2010) Empathy as cultural process: insights from the cultural neuroscience of empathy. World Cult Psychiatry Res Rev 5:32–42 Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Niculescu AI, van Dijk EMAG, Nijholt A, Limbu DK, See SL, Wong AHY (2010) Socializing with Olivia, the youngest robot receptionist outside the lab. In: Ge SS, Li H, Cabibihan J-J, Tan YK (eds) Proc of the 2nd international conference on social robotics (ICSR 2010), Berlin. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 6414. Springer, Berlin, pp 50–62 Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ortony A, Clore G, Collins A (1988) The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bee N, Andre E, Vogt T, Gebhard P (2009) First ideas on the use of affective cues in an empathic computer-based companion. In: Proc of 8th int conf on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2009), Budapest, Hungary, pp 5009–5014 Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Prendinger H, Ishizuka M (2005) The empathic companion: a character-based interface that addresses users’ affective states. In: Applied artificial intelligence, pp 267–285 Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Oehman A, Hamm A, Hugdahl K (2000) Cognition and the autonomic nervous system: orienting, anticipation, and conditioning. In: Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG, Bernston GG (eds) Handbook of psychophysiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 533–575 Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hassenzahl M, Platz A, Burmester M, Lehner K (2000) Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine software’s appeal. In: Proc CHI 2000, Den Haag, The Netherlands. Guilford, New York, pp 201–208 Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hassenzahl M, Burmester M, Koller F (2003) AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In: Mensch und computer ’03, pp 187–196 Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hone KS, Graham R (2000) Towards a tool for the subjective assessment of speech system interfaces (SASSI). Nat Lang Eng 6(3–4):287–303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    ITU-T Recommendation P.85 (1994) Telephone transmission quality subjective opinion tests. A method for subjective performance assessment of the quality of speech voice out-put devices Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3. Speech acts. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 41–58 Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Khan R, De Angeli A (2009) The attractiveness stereotype in the evaluation of embodied conversational agents. Interact 1:85–97 Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Siegel M, Breazeal C, Norton MI (2009) Persuasive robotics: the influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: Proc of IROS, Dresden, Germany, pp 2563–2568 Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New York Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Niculescu AI, van Dijk EMAG, Nijholt A, See SL, Li H (2010) How humans behave and evaluate a social robot in real-environment settings. In: Brinkman WP, Neerincx M (eds) Proc of the 28th European conference on cognitive ergonomics (ECCE), Delft. Mediamatica, Delft, pp 351–352 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreea Niculescu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Betsy van Dijk
    • 1
  • Anton Nijholt
    • 1
  • Haizhou Li
    • 2
  • Swee Lan See
    • 2
  1. 1.Human Media InteractionUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for Infocomm ResearchSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations