International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 165–180 | Cite as

Survey of Factors for the Prediction of Human Comfort with a Non-anthropomorphic Robot in Public Spaces

  • David C. May
  • Kristie J. Holler
  • Cindy L. Bethel
  • Lesley Strawderman
  • Daniel W. Carruth
  • John M. Usher
Survey
  • 379 Downloads

Abstract

This article presents the results of a literature review and empirical analysis of factors that may influence human perceptions and attitudes toward non-anthropomorphic robots in public spaces. Using data from self-report surveys of 170 adults in a U.S. southeastern state, we examined demographic, attitudinal, and contextual differences in perceptions of mechanical-appearing robots in public settings. Within the limitations of the sample under study, the findings suggest that although important gender, race, age, and contextual differences were uncovered, adults were largely accepting of mechanical-appearing robots in public environments and this acceptance varied little across demographic factors. Additionally, adults were also curious about the potential that robots have to assist humans in those environments. Implications for future research are also presented.

Keywords

Human–robot interaction Innovative technology Robotics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thankfully acknowledge the following students and colleagues who contributed their efforts throughout the project: Ethan Hosea, Kayla Huddleston, Bryant Hutchins, Jeannice Louine, Jacob Mason, Ross McCool, John McGinley, Sarah Rogers, Richard Sween, Daniel Waddell, Jesse Williams, and Brianna Wright.

References

  1. 1.
    Bartneck C, Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K (2005) Cultural differences in attitudes towards robots. In: Social intelligence and interaction in animals, robots and agents (AISB’05)—proceedings of the symposium on robot companions: hard problems and open challenges in robot–human interaction, pp 1–4. SSAISB 2005 conventionGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartneck C, Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kennsuke K (2005) A cross-cultural study on attitudes towards robots. In: The 11th international conference on human–computer interactionGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2007) The influence of peoples culture and prior experiences with aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc 21(1–2):217–230Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beer JM, Smarr CA, Chen TL, Prakash A, Mitzner TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA (2012) The domesticated robot: design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. In: 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI 2012), pp 335–342. doi:10.1145/2157689.2157806
  5. 5.
    Bergstrom N, Kanda T, Miyashita T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2008) Modeling of natural human–robot encounters. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2008). IEEE, pp 2623–2629. doi:10.1109/IROS.2008.4650896
  6. 6.
    Bethel CL (2009) Robots without faces: non-verbal social human–robot interaction. Dissertation, University of South FloridaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bethel CL, Murphy RR (2008) Survey of non-facial/non-verbal affective expressions for appearance-constrained robots. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C 38(1):83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bureau C (2010) United states census bureau quick facts for mississippi. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/28
  9. 9.
    Caraian S, Kirchner N, Colborne-Veel P (2015) Moderating a robot’s ability to influence people through its level of sociocontextual interactivity. In: Tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 2696489, pp 149–156. doi:10.1145/2696454.2696489
  10. 10.
    Cha E, Forlizzi J, Srinivasa SS (2015) Robots in the home: qualitative and quantitative insights into kitchen organization. In: Tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 2696465, pp 319–326. doi:10.1145/2696454.2696465
  11. 11.
    Commission E (2012) Public attitudes towards robots. Report, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Datta C, Kapuria A, Vijay R (2011) A pilot study to understand requirements of a shopping mall robot. In: ACM (ed.) ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 127–128. doi:10.1145/1957656.1957694
  13. 13.
    de Graaf MM, Allouch SB (2013) Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robot Auton Syst 61(12):1476–1486. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evans JM (1994) Helpmate: an autonomous mobile robot courier for hospitals. In: IEEE/RSJ/GI international conference on intelligent robots and systems ’94. ’Advanced Robotic Systems and the Real World’, IROS ’94, vol 3, pp. 1695–1700Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eyssel F, Loughnan, S (2013) It don’t matter if you’re black or white? In: International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer International Publishing, pp 422–431Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ezer N (2008) Is a robot an appliance, teammate, or friend? Age-related differences in expectations of and attitudes towards personal home-based robots, ProQuest, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C (2006) Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home. In: 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 1121286, pp 258–265. doi:10.1145/1121241.1121286
  19. 19.
    Gates B (2006) A robot in everyone home. Sci Am 296:58–65. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0107-58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glas DF, Wada K, Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2013) Personal service: a robot that greets people individually based on observed behavior patterns. In: 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, 2447601, pp. 129–130Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hayashi K, Sakamoto D, Kanda T, Shiomi M, Koizumi S, Ishiguro H, Ogasawara T, Hagita N (2007) Humanoid robots as a passive-social medium: a field experiment at a train station. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 1228735,pp 137–144. doi:10.1145/1228716.1228735
  22. 22.
    Heerink M (2011) Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In: 6th international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 1957704, pp 147–148. doi:10.1145/1957656.1957704
  23. 23.
    Heyer C (2010) (IROS) Human–robot interaction and future industrial robotics applications. In: 2010 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, pp 4749–4754. doi:10.1109/IROS.2010.5651294
  24. 24.
    Khan Z (1998) Attitudes towards intelligent service robots. Report, KTH Department of Numerical Analysis and Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kidokoro H, Kanda T, Brscic D, Shiomi M (2013) Will i bother here? A robot anticipating its influence on pedestrian walking comfort. In: 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, 2447664, pp 259–266Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Knightscope: (2015) Predict and prevent crime together...today—k5 robot. http://knightscope.com/about.html
  27. 27.
    Kuo IH, Rabindran JM, Broadbent E, Lee YI, Kerse N, Stafford RMQ, MacDonald BA (2009) Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. In: 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2009). IEEE, pp 214–219. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326292
  28. 28.
    Mumm J, Mutlu B (2011) Human–robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human–robot interaction. In: 6th International conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’11), ACM, pp 331–338. doi:10.1145/1957656.1957786
  29. 29.
    Murphy RR (2004) Human–robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 34(2):138–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mutlu B, Forlizzi J (2008) Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human–robot interaction. In: 3rd Annual ACM international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI08). ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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
  32. 32.
    Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T (2006) Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI Soc 20(2):138–150. doi:10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Norman DA (2005) Robots in the home: what might they do? Interactions 12(2):65. doi:10.1145/1052438.1052473 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nourbakhsh IR, Kunz C, Willeke T (2003) The mobot museum robot installations: a five year experiment. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2003), vol 4, pp 3636–3641Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pantofaru C, Takayama L, Foote T, Soto B (2012) Exploring the role of robots in home organization. In: Seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 2157805, pp 327–334. doi:10.1145/2157689.2157805
  36. 36.
    Park E, Dallae J, del Pobil Pascual, Ferr n, (2012) The law of attraction in human-robot interaction. Int J Adv Robot Syst 9(35):1–7Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rosenthal-von der Putten AM, Kramer NC, Hoffman L, Sobieraj S, Eimler SC (2013) An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot. Int J Soc Robot 5(1):17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1998) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scopelliti M, Giuliani MV, Fornara F (2005) Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach. Univ Access Inf Soc 4(2):146–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shibata T, Wada K, Ikeda Y, Sabanovic S (2009) Cross-cultural studies on subjective evaluation of a seal robot. Adv Robot 23(4):443–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shiomi M, Sakamoto D, Kanda T, Toshinori Ishi C, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2008) A semi-autonomous communication robot: a field trial at a train station. In: 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 1349862, pp 303–310. doi:10.1145/1349822.1349862
  42. 42.
    Sims VK, Chin MG, Sushil DJ, Barber DJ, Ballion T, Clark BR, Garfield KA, Dolezal MJ, Shumaker R, Finkelstein N (2005) Anthropomorphism of robotic forms: a response to affordances? In: Human factors and ergonomics society 49th annual meeting—2005, pp 602–605Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sung JY, Guo L, Grinter RE, Christensen HI (2007) “my roomba is rambo”: intimate home appliances. In: 9th international conference on ubiquitous computing. Springer, 1771601, pp 145–162Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Walters ML, Dautenhahn K (2007) A personalized robot companion?—the role of individual differences on spatial preferences in hri scenarios. In: 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2007). IEEE, pp 1143–1148. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415252
  45. 45.
    Takayama L, Ju W, Nass C (2008) Beyond dirty, dangerous and dull: What everyday people think robots should do. In: 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 1349827, pp 25–32. doi:10.1145/1349822.1349827
  46. 46.
    Takayama L, Pantofaru C (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human–robot interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2009). IEEE, pp 5495–5502Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926. http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  48. 48.
    Walters ML (1998) The design space for robot appearance and behaviour for social robot companions. Thesis, School of Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of HertfordshireGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R, Koay KL, 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: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN 2005). IEEE, pp 347–352. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513803
  50. 50.
    Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Kaouri C, Boekhorst R, Nehaniv C, Werry I, Lee D (2005) Close encounters: spatial distances between people and a robot of mechanistic appearance. In: 2005 5th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots. IEEE, pp 450–455. doi:10.1109/ICHR.2005.1573608
  51. 51.
    Zawieska K, Duffy BR, Stroska A (2012) Understanding anthropomorphisation in social robotics. Pomiary Autom Robot 16(11):78–82Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • David C. May
    • 1
  • Kristie J. Holler
    • 1
  • Cindy L. Bethel
    • 2
  • Lesley Strawderman
    • 3
  • Daniel W. Carruth
    • 3
  • John M. Usher
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of SociologyMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringMississippi StateUSA
  3. 3.Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems (CAVS)Mississippi State UniversityStarkvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations