Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 17–34 | Cite as

An Experimental Study on Emotional Reactions Towards a Robot

  • Astrid M. Rosenthal-von der PüttenEmail author
  • Nicole C. Krämer
  • Laura Hoffmann
  • Sabrina Sobieraj
  • Sabrina C. Eimler
Article

Abstract

Although robots are starting to enter into our professional and private lives, little is known about the emotional effects which robots elicit. However, insights into this topic are an important prerequisite when discussing, for example, ethical issues regarding the question of what role we (want to) allow robots to play in our lives. In line with the Media Equation, humans may react towards robots as they do towards humans, making it all the more important to carefully investigate the preconditions and consequences of contact with robots. Based on assumptions on the socialness of reactions towards robots and anecdotal evidence of emotional attachments to robots (e.g. Klamer and BenAllouch in Trappl R. (ed.), Proceedings of EMCSR 2010, Vienna, 2010; Klamer and BenAllouch in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI-2010), Atlanta, GA. ACM, New York, 2010; Krämer et al. in Appl. Artif. Intell. 25(6):474–502, 2011), we conducted a study that provides further insights into the question of whether humans show emotional reactions towards Ugobe’s Pleo, which is shown in different situations. We used a 2×2 design with one between-subjects factor “prior interaction with the robot” (never seen the robot before vs. 10-minute interaction with the robot) and a within-subject factor “type of video” (friendly interaction video vs. torture video). Following a multi-method approach, we assessed participants’ physiological arousal and self-reported emotions as well as their general evaluation of the videos and the robot. In line with our hypotheses, participants showed increased physiological arousal during the reception of the torture video as compared to the normal video. They also reported fewer positive and more negative feelings after the torture video and expressed empathic concern for the robot. It appears that the acquaintance with the robot does not play a role, as “prior interaction with the robot” showed no effect.

Keywords

Human-robot interaction Emotional response Empathy Psychophysiological measures Experimental study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Program [FP7/2007-2013] under grant agreement No. 231868.

References

  1. 1.
    Appel J, von der Pütten AM, Krämer NC, Gratch J (2012) Does humanity matter? Analyzing the importance of social cues and perceived agency of a computer system for the emergence of social reactions during human-computer interaction. Adv Hum Compt Int 2012:324694. doi: 10.1155/2012/324694 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arkin RC, Fujita M, Takagi T, Hasegawa R (2003) An ethological and emotional basis for human-robot interaction: socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):191–201. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00375-5 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bainbridge WA, Hart J, Kim ES, Scassellati B (2008) The effect of presence on human-robot interaction. In: The 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 701–706. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bainbridge WA, Hart JW, Kim ES, Scassellatti B (2010) The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int J Soc Robot 3:41–52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barsalou L, Breazeal C, Smith L (2007) Cognition as coordinated non-cognition. Cogn Process 8(2):79–91. doi: 10.1007/s10339-007-0163-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartneck C (2002) eMuu—an embodied emotional character for the ambient intelligent home. PhD thesis, Eindhoven. http://www.bartneck.de/publications/2002/eMuu/bartneckPHDThesis2002.pdf. Accesssed 3 May 2011
  7. 7.
    Bartneck C, Hu J (2008) Exploring the abuse of robots. Interact Stud 9:415–433. doi: 10.1075/is.9.3.04bar CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bartneck C, Rosalia C, Menges R, Deckers I (2005) Robot abuse—a limitation of the media equation. In: Proceedings of the interact 2005 workshop on abuse, Rome, Italy. http://www.bartneck.de/publications/2005/robotAbuse/index.html. Accesssed 16 March 2011 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baumeister RF, Leary MR (1995) The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull 117(3):497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beck A, Cañamero L, Bard KA (2010) Towards an affect space for robots to display emotional body language. In: 19th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication principe di Piemonte, Viareggio, Italy Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Becker-Asano C, Ishiguro H (2009) Laughter in social robotics—no laughing matter. In: Proc intl workshop on social intelligence design (SID2009), pp 287–300 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Becker-Asano C, Ishiguro H (2011) Evaluating facial displays of emotion for the android robot geminoid F. In: IEEE SSCI workshop on affective computational intelligence, p 2229 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Becker-Asano C, Wachsmuth I (2008) Affect simulation with primary and secondary emotions: intelligent virtual agents. In: Prendinger H, Lester J, Ishizuka M (eds) Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–28 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Becker-Asano C, Wachsmuth I (2010) Affective computing with primary and secondary emotions in a virtual human. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 20(1):32–49. doi: 10.1007/s10458-009-9094-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Becker-Asano C, Kanda T, Ishi C, Ishiguro H (2009) How about laughter? Perceived naturalness of two laughing humanoid robots. Affective computing and intelligent interaction. IEEE Press, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Benedek M, Kaernbach C (2010) A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. J Neurosci Methods 190:80–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.04.028 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bente G, Petersen A, Krämer NC, de Ruiter JP (2001) Transcript-based computer animation of movement: evaluating a new tool for nonverbal behavior research. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 33(3):303–310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bethel CL (2009) Robots without faces: non-verbal social human-robot interaction. Dissertation, University of South Florida Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blow MP, Dautenhahn K, Appleby A, Nehaniv CL, Lee D (2006) Perception of robot smiles and dimensions for human-robot interaction design. In: Proceedings of 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2006), pp 469–474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Breazeal C (2002) Designing sociable robots: issues and lessons. In: Dautenhahn KK, Bond AH, Canamero L, Edmonds B (eds) Socially intelligent agents. Creating relationships with computers and robots. Kluwer, Norwell, pp 149–156 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Breazeal C (2003) Emotion and sociable humanoid robots: applications of affective computing in human-computer interaction. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 59(1–2):119–155. doi: 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00018-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bruce A, Nourbakhsh I, Simmons R (2001) The role of expressiveness and attention in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2001 AAAI fall symposium, Cape Cod, MA, USA Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cacioppo JT, Patrick B (2008) Loneliness: human nature and the need for social connection. Norton, New York Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG, Berntson GG (2007) Psychophysiological science: interdisciplinary approaches to classic questions about the mind. In: Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG, Berntson GG (eds) Handbook of psychophysiology, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 1–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cañamero L (2002) Playing the emotion game with Feelix: socially intelligent agents. In: Dautenhahn K, Bond A, Cañamero L, Edmonds B (eds) Multiagent systems, artificial societies, and simulated organizations. Springer, New York, pp 69–76 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cañamero L (2005) Emotion understanding from the perspective of autonomous robots research: emotion and brain. Neural Netw 18(4):445–455. doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2005.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carpenter J, Davis J, Erwin-Stewart N, Lee T, Bransford J, Vye N (2009) Gender representation and humanoid robots designed for domestic use. Int J Soc Robot 1(3):261–265. doi: 10.1007/s12369-009-0016-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carvallo M, Pelham BW (2006) When fiends become friends: the need to belong and perceptions of personal and group discrimination. J Pers Soc Psychol 90:94–105. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cassell J, Stocky T, Bickmore T, Gao Y, Nakano Y, Ryokai K, Tversky D, Vaucelle C, Vilhjálmsson H (2002) MACK: media lab autonomous conversational kiosk. In: Proceedings of Imagina02, Monte Carlo Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cassell J, Bickmore T (2000) External manifestations of trustworthiness in the interface. Commun ACM 43(12):50–56. doi: 10.1145/355112.355123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cheng Y, Tzeng OJ, Decety J, Hsieh JC (2006) Gender differences in the human mirror system: a magnetoencephalography study. NeuroReport 17:1115–1119. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000223393.59328.21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Crowell CR, Villano M, Scheutz M, Schermerhorn P (2009) Gendered voice and robot entities: perceptions and reactions of male and female subjects. In: Intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2009), pp 3735–3741 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dautenhahn K (1998) Elektronische Sisyphusse [Electronic sisyphuses]. Interview in the online magazine Pointer. http://www.gmd.de/pointer/. Accessed 27 July 2005
  35. 35.
    Dautenhahn K, Woods S, Kaouri C, Walters M, Koay KL, Werry I (2005) What is a robot companion—friend, assistant or butler? In: Proc IEEE IRS/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2005), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 2–6 August 2005, pp 1488–1493 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Davis MH (1983) Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 44:113–126. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Davis MH (1983) The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: a multidimensional approach. J Pers 51(2):167–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00860.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    DeCremer D, Leonardelli GJ (2003) Cooperation in social dilemmas and the need to belong: the moderating effect of group size. Group Dyn 7(2):168–174. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.7.2.168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eimler SC, von Krämer NC, der Pütten AM (2010) Prerequisites for human-agent and human-robot interaction: towards an integrated theory. In: Trappl R (ed) European meetings on cybernetics and systems research (EMCSR 2010), Vienna, Austria Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Eimler SC, Krämer NC, von der Pütten AM (2011) Determinants of acceptance and emotion attribution in confrontation with a robot rabbit. Appl Artif Intell 25(6):447–502. doi: 10.1080/08839514.2011.587154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eisenberg N, Lennon R (1983) Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychol Bull 94(1):100–131. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.94.1.100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Eisenberg N, Fabes RA (1990) Empathy: conceptualization, assessment, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motiv Emot 14:131–149. doi: 10.1007/BF00991640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 41:1149–1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gadanho SC, Hallam J (2001) Robot learning driven by emotions. Adapt Behav 9(1):42–64. doi: 10.1177/105971230200900102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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, pp 55–60. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2003.1251796 Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gratch J, Marsella S (2001) Tears and fears: modeling emotions and emotional behaviors in synthetic agents. In: Conference on autonomous agents, Montreal, Canada Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Groom V, Takayama L, Ochi P, Nass C (2009) I am my robot: the impact of robot-building and robot form on operators. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI’09). ACM Press, New York Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hegel F, Eyssel F, Wrede B (2010) The social robot ‘Flobi’: key concepts of industrial design. 19th. In: IEEE international symposium in robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2010), Viareggio, Italy Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hein G, Singer T (2008) I feel how you feel but not always: the empathic brain and its modulation: cognitive neuroscience. Curr Opin Neurobiol 18(2):153–158. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2008.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hoffmann L, Krämer NC, Lam-chi A, Kopp S (2009) Media equation revisited: do users show polite reactions towards an embodied agent? In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on intelligent virtual agents, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Springer, Berlin, pp 159–165. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04380-2_19 Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hoffmann L, Krämer NC (2011) How should an artificial entity be embodied? Comparing the effects of a physically present robot and its virtual representation. Paper presented at the HRI 2011 workshop on social robotic telepresence, March 2011, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 14–20 Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Itoh K, Miwa H, Nukariya Y, Zecca M, Takanobu H, Roccella S, Carrozza MC, Dario P, Atsuo T (2006) Development of a bioinstrumentation system in the interaction between a human and a robot. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 2620–2625. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jung Y, Lee KM (2004) Effects of physical embodiment on social presence of social robots. In: Proceedings of PRESENCE 2004, pp 80–87. doi: 10.1145/1349822.1349866 Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jung B, Kopp S (2003) FlurMax: an interactive virtual agent for entertaining visitors in a hallway. In: Rist T, Aylett R, Ballin D, Rickel J (eds) IVA 2003. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 2792. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–26. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-39396-2_5 Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kahn P et al (2012) Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes? In: International conference on human-robot interaction (HRI 2012), Boston, USA. doi: 10.1145/2157689.2157696 Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Imai M, Ono T (2003) Body movement analysis of human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 177–182 Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Ono T, Imai M, Nakatsu R (2002) Development and evaluation of an interactive humanoid robot “Robovie”. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA’02), vol 2, pp 1848–1855. doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2002.1014810 Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kanda T, Kamasima M, Imai M, Ono T, Sakamoto D, Ishiguro H, Anzai Y (2007) A humanoid robot that pretends to listen to route guidance from a human. Auton Robots 22(1):87–100. doi: 10.1007/s10514-006-9007-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kanda T, Miyashita T, Osada T, Haikawa Y, Ishiguro H (2005) Analysis of humanoid appearances in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ intelligent robot systems (IROS 2005), pp 899–906. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2005.1544960 Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kappas A (2005) My happy vacuum cleaner. In: ISRE general meeting, symposium on artificial emotions, Bari Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kidd C (2003) Sociable robots: the role of presence and task in human-robot interaction. Masterthesis. http://web.media.mit.edu/~coryk/papers/Kidd_MS_thesis.pdf. Accessed 30 September 2010
  62. 62.
    Kidd CD, Breazeal C (2004) Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In: Proceedings of IROS 2004. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2004.1389967 Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kiesler S, Powers A, Fussel SR, Torrey C (2008) Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent. Soc Cogn 26(2):169–181. doi: 10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Klamer T, BenAllouch S (2010) Acceptance and use of a zoomorphic robot in a domestic setting. In: Trappl R (ed) Proceedings of EMCSR 2010, Vienna Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Klamer T, BenAllouch S (2010) Zoomorphic robots used by elderly people at home. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI-2010), Atlanta, GA. ACM, New York Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Krämer NC, Eimler SC, von der Pütten AM, Payr S (2011) Theory of companions: what can theoretical models contribute to applications and understanding of human-robot interaction? Appl Artif Intell 25(6):474–502. doi: 10.1080/08839514.2011.587153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Krämer NC, Tietz B, Bente G (2003) Effects of embodied interface agents and their gestural activity. In: Aylett R, Ballin D, Rist T, Rickel J (eds) 4th international working conference on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Hamburg, pp 292–300 Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kulic D, Croft E (2007) Physiological and subjective responses to articulated robot motion. Robotica 25:13–27. doi: 10.1017/S0263574706002955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kubota N, Nojima Y, Baba N, Kojima F, Fukuda T (2000) Evolving pet robot with emotional model. In: Proceedings of the 2000 congress on evolutionary computation, vol 2, pp 1231–1237. doi: 10.1109/CEC.2000.870791 Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lamm H, Stephan E (1986) Zur Messung von Einsamkeit: Entwicklung einer deutschen Fassung des Fragebogens von Russell und Peplau. Z Arbeits- Organisationspsychol 30:132–134 Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Leary MR, Kelly KM, Cottrell CA, Schreindorfer LS (2007) Individual differences in the need to belong: mapping the nomological network. Unpublished manuscript, Duke University Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Leite I, Martinho C, Pereira A, Paiva A (2008) iCat: an affective game buddy based on anticipatory mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Estoril, Portugal, vol 3. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Estoril, pp 1229–1232 Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Leite I, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2008) Are emotional robots more fun to play with? In: The 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2008), pp 77–82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Marsella S, Gratch J, Petta P (2010) Computational models of emotion. In: Scherer KR, Bänziger T, Roesch E (eds) A blueprint for a affective computing: a sourcebook and manual. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mehrabian A (1976) Questionnaire measures of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Psychol Rep 38(1):199–209. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1976.38.1.199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Meyer ML, Masten CL, Ma Y, Wang C, Shi Z, Eisenberger NI, Han S (2012) Empathy for the social suffering of friends and strangers recruits distinct patterns of brain activation. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. doi: 10.1093/scan/nss019 Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Milgram S (1974) In: Obedience to authority: an experimental view. Tavistock, London Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Nass C, Isbister K, Lee E-J (2000) Truth is beauty: researching embodied conversational agents. In: Cassell J (ed) Embodied conversational agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 374–402 Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Nass CI, Moon Y, Morkes J, Kim E-Y, Fogg BJ (1997) Computers are social actors: a review of current research. In: Human values and the design of computer technology, pp 137–162 Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ogata T, Sugano S (1999) Emotional communication between humans and the autonomous robot. Which has the emotion model. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, vol 4, pp 3177–3182. Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Paulus C (2009) The Saarbrueck personality questionnaire on empathy: psychometric evaluation of the German version of the interpersonal reactivity index. http://www.uni-saarland.de/fak5/ezw/personal/paulus/empathy/SPF_Artikel.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2012
  83. 83.
    Pereira A, Martinho C, Leite I, Paiva A (2008) iCat the chess player: the influence of embodiment in the enjoyment of a game. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on AAMAS, Estoril, Portugal, pp 1253–1256 Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Pickett CL, Gardner W, Knowles M (2004) Getting a cue: the need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30(9):1095–1107. doi: 10.1177/0146167203262085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ravaja N (2004) Contributions of psychophysiology to media research: review and recommendations. Media Psychol 6(2):193–235. doi: 10.1207/s1532785xmep0602_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Read R, Belpaeme T (2012) How to use non-linguistic utterances to convey emotion in child-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of human-robot interaction (HRI’12), Boston, MA, 6th–8th March 2012. doi: 10.1145/2157689.2157764 Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Rossen B, Johnsen K, Deladisma A, Lind S, Lok B (2008) Virtual humans elicit skin-tone bias consistent with real-world skin-tone biases. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on intelligent virtual agents, Tokyo, Japan. Springer, Berlin, pp 237–244. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-85483-8_24 Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Russell D, Peplau LA, Cutrona CE (1980) The revised UCLA loneliness scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 39(3):472–480. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) The darker and brighter sides of human existence: basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychol Inq 11(4):319–338. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_03 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Singer, Seymore, O’Doherty, Stephan, Dolan, Frith (2006) Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Singer T, Seymour B, O’Doherty JP, Stephan KE, Dolan RJ, Frith CD (2006) Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature 439(7075):466–469. doi: 10.1038/nature04271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Shinozawa K, Naya F, Yamato J, Kogure K (2005) Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making. Int J Human-Comput Stud 62(2):267–279. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C, Barker C, Pistrang N, Sanchez-Vives MV (2006) A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE 1(1). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000039
  95. 95.
    Smith J (2000) GrandChair: conversational collection of family stories. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Thomaz AL, Berlin M, Breazeal C (2005) An embodied computational model of social referencing. In: Proceedings of fourteenth IEEE workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN-05), Nashville, TN, pp 591–598. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513844 Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Turner JR (1994) Cardiovascular reactivity and stress: patterns of physiological response. Plenum, New York Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    von der Pütten AM, Reipen C, Wiedmann A, Kopp S, Krämer NC (2008) Comparing emotional vs envelope feedback for ECAs. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on intelligent virtual agents, Tokyo, Japan. Springer, Berlin, pp 550–551. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-85483-8_84 Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    von der Pütten AM, Reipen C, Wiedmann A, Kopp S, Krämer NC (2009) The impact of different embodied agent-feedback on users’ behavior. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on intelligent virtual agents, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Springer, Berlin, pp 549–551. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04380-2_86 Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    von der Pütten AM, Krämer NC, Gratch J, Kang S-H (2010) “It doesn’t matter what you are!” explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Comput Hum Behav 26(6):1641–1650. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    von der Pütten A, Krämer N, Eimler S (2011) Living with a robot companion: empirical study on the interaction with an artificial health advisor. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM international conference on multimodal interaction (ICMI’11). ACM, New York. doi: 10.1145/2070481.2070544 Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Watson D, Tellegen A, Clark LA (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(6):1063–1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Wainer J, Feil-Seifer D, Shell D, Matarić MJ (2007) Embodiment and human-robot interaction: a task-based perspective. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2007), Jiju, Korea. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415207 Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Woods SN, Dautenhahn K, Kaouri C, Boekhorst R, Koay KL (2005) Is this robot like me? Links between human and robot personality traits. In: Proceedings of IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots (Humanoids 2005), pp 375–380. doi: 10.1109/ICHR.2005.1573596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Yan C, Peng W, Lee KM, Jin S-A (2004) Can robots have personality? An empirical study of personality manifestation, social responses, and social presence in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the international communication association Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Yamato J, Shinozawa K, Naya F, Kogure K (2001) Effects of conversational agent and robot on user decision. In: IJCAI-01 workshop Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Zecca M, Roccella S, Carrozza M, Miwa H, Itoh K, Cappiello G et al (2004) On the development of the emotion expression humanoid robot WE-4RII with RCH-1. In: 4th IEEE/RAS international conference on humanoid robots, vol 1, pp 235–252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Astrid M. Rosenthal-von der Pütten
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nicole C. Krämer
    • 1
  • Laura Hoffmann
    • 1
  • Sabrina Sobieraj
    • 1
  • Sabrina C. Eimler
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations