Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multiple Communication Roles in Human–Robot Interactions in Public Space

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study looks at robots as media and aims to explore the multiple communication roles that they can play in public space. We have analyzed three scenarios: European Researchers’ Night in Pisa; the inauguration of the University of Udine’s 39th academic year; and the official video of the inauguration in Udine. These three scenarios represent three types of media interactions. The first is a human–robot interaction based on a one-to-one or circular communication model; the second is a robot–human interaction based on a one-to-many communication model in-presence; and the third is a robot–human interaction, based on the classical one-to-many communication model mediated through a television screen. Results show that public patterns of behavior toward the robot tend to replicate the ritualization of encounters between humans in the one-to-one model, and audience rituals in public events toward human characters in the one-to-many model. Second, greater proximity and familiarity with the robot increases the respondents’ positive evaluations of all the aspects of the interactions. These results are in line with results coming from research on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Standardized residuals have been considered in the interpretation of significant differences across conditions in contingency tables (i.e. s.r. > |2|).

References

  1. de Graaf MMA, Ben Allouch S, Jan van Dijk JAGM (2017) Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes. Interact Stud 17(3):462–491

    Google Scholar 

  2. Coeckelbergh M (2010) Humans, animals, and robots: a phenomenological approach to human–robot relations. Int J Soc Robot 3(2):197–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0075-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cabibihan JJ, Williams MA, Simmons R (2014) When robots engage humans. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):311–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0249-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wolbring G, Yumakulov S (2014) Social robots: views of staff of a disability service organization. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):457–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0229-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stafford RQ, MacDonald BA, Jayawardena C, Wegner DM, Broadbent E (2014) Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. Int J Soc Robot 6(1):17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0186-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fortunati L, Esposito A, Sarrica M, Ferrin G (2015) Children’s knowledge and imaginary about robots. Int J Soc Robot 7:685–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhao S (2006) Humanoid social robots as a medium of communication. New Media Soc 8:401–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jensen B, Tomatis N, Mayor L, Drygajlo A, Siegwart R (2005) Robots meet humans—interaction in public spaces. IEEE Trans Industr Electron 52:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sone Y (2016) Japanese robot culture. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Niemelä M, Heikkilä P, Lammi H (2017) A social service robot in a shopping mall: expectations of the management, retailers and consumers. In: Proceeding HRI ‘17. Proceedings of the companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 227–228

  11. Salvini P (2017) Urban robotics: towards responsible innovations for our cities. Robot Auton Syst 100:278–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cavallo F, Limosani R, Manzi A, Bonaccorsi M, Esposito R, Di Rocco M, Dario P (2014) Development of a socially believable multi-robot solution from town to home. Cogn Comput 6:954–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Höflich JR (2013) Relationships to social robots. Intervalla Platf Intellect Exchange 1:35–48

    Google Scholar 

  14. Krotz F (2007) Mediatisierung: Fallstudien zum Wandel von Kommunikation. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  15. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and the new media like real people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2004) Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Hum Comput Interact 19:61–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. P8 TA(2017)0051. European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-2017-0051+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN

  18. Delvaux M (2016) REPORT with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2017-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

  19. Gittleson B (2017) Saudi Arabia criticized for giving female robot citizenship, while it restricts women’s rights. ABC News, October 26. Retrieved October 28, 2017

  20. Maza C (2017) Saudi Arabia gives citizenship to a non-muslim, English-speaking robot. Newsweek, Retrieved October 26, 2017

  21. Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenbaun K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42:143–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dautenhahn K, Billard A (1999) Bringing up robots or—the psychology of socially intelligent robots: from theory to implementation. In: 3rd annual conference on autonomous agents, pp 366–367

  23. Jovchelovitch S, Priego-Hernandez J (2015) Cognitive polyphasia, knowledge encounters and public spheres. In: Sammut G, Andreouli E, Gaskell G, Valsiner J (eds) The Cambridge handbook of social representations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 163–178

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Goffman E (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday Anchor Books, New York (It. transl.: La vita quotidiana come rappresentazione, Bologna 1969)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bagnasco A (2001) Organizzazione sociale dello spazio. Entry of the Enciclopedia delle Scienze Sociali. I Supplement. Treccani, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  26. Di Masso A (2012) Grounding citizenship: toward a political psychology of public space. Polit Psychol 33(1):123–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Purini F (2007) Spazio pubblico. Entry of the Enciclopedia Italiana, VII. Appendix. Treccani, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fortunati L (2017) Robotization and the domestic sphere. New Media Soc 20(8):2673–2690

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Thompson LF, Gillan DJ (2010) Social factors in human–robot interaction. In: Barnes M, Jentsch F (eds) Human–robot interaction in future military operations. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 67–81

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gehl RW, Bakardjieva M (eds) (2017) Sociabots and their friends. Digital media and the automation of sociality. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bicchi A, Tamburrini G (2015) Social robotics and societies of robots. Inf Soc 31:237–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bonaccorsi M, Fiorini L, Cavallo F, Saffiotti A, Dario P (2016) A cloud robotics solution to improve social assistive robots for active and healthy aging. Int J Soc Robot 8:393–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Di Nuovo A, Broz F, Belpaeme T, Cangelosi A, Cavallo F, Esposito R, Dario P (2014) A web based multi-modal interface for elderly users of the robot-era multi-robot services. In Systems, man and cybernetics (SMC), 2014 IEEE international conference on IEEE, October 2017, pp 2186–2191

  34. Taipale S, Sarrica M, de Luca F, Fortunati L (2015) Europeans’ perception of robots implications for social policies. In: Vincent J, Taipale S, Sapio B, Lugano G, Fortunati L (eds) Social robots from a human perspective. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Glas DF, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) Simultaneous people tracking and localization for social robots using external laser range finders. In: Intelligent robots and systems, 2009. IROS 2009. IEEE/RSJ international conference on IEEE, October 2009, pp 846–853

  36. Chen Y, Wu F, Shuai W, Chen X (2017) Robots serve humans in public places—KeJia robot as a shopping assistant. Int J Adv Robot Syst. https://doi.org/10.1177/1729881417703569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mussakhojayeva S, Zhanbyrtayev M, Agzhanov Y, Sandygulova A (2016) Who should robots adapt to within a multi-party interaction in a public space? In: The eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction, IEEE Press, March 2016, pp 483–484

  38. Ferrari GA (1984) Meccanica ‘allargata’. In: Giannantoni G, Vegetti M (eds) La scienza ellenistica. Bibliopolis, Napoli, pp 225–296

    Google Scholar 

  39. Parlato E (1991) Il Volto dell’Utopia: modi e significato dell’automa rinascimentale. In: Artioli U, Bartoli F (eds) Il mito dell’automa. Artificio, Firenze, pp 26–30

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rinaldi A (1979) La ricerca della ‘terza’ natura: artificialia e naturalia nel giardino toscano del ‘500. In: Fagiolo M (ed) Natura e artificio. Officina Edizioni, Roma, pp 154–175

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zanca A (1991) Il mondo degli automi tra manierismo e secolo dei lumi. In: Artioli U, Bartoli F (eds) Il mito dell’automa. Artificio, Firenze, pp 31–39

    Google Scholar 

  42. Baron N (2013) Authenticity, emotions, and ICTs. Intervalla Platf Intellect Exchange 1:7–16

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fortunati L, Manganelli A (2008) The social representations of telecommunications. Pers Ubiquit Comput 12:421–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Elster J (1989) Nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Contarello A, Fortunati L, Sarrica M (2007) Social thinking and the mobile phone: a study of social change with the diffusion of mobile phones, using a social representations framework. Mob Phone Cult Special Issue Contin J Media Cult 21:149–163 (edited by Gerard Goggin)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics, University of Udine, Via delle Scienze, 206, 33100, Udine, Italy

    Leopoldina Fortunati

  2. The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Viale Rinaldo Piaggio, 34, 56025, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy

    Filippo Cavallo

  3. Department of Communication and Social Research, Sapienza, University of Rome, Via Salaria 113, 00198, Rome, Italy

    Mauro Sarrica

Authors
  1. Leopoldina Fortunati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Filippo Cavallo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mauro Sarrica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leopoldina Fortunati.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fortunati, L., Cavallo, F. & Sarrica, M. Multiple Communication Roles in Human–Robot Interactions in Public Space. Int J of Soc Robotics 12, 931–944 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0509-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0509-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation