Small Talk with a Robot? The Impact of Dialog Content, Talk Initiative, and Gaze Behavior of a Social Robot on Trust, Acceptance, and Proximity

Abstract

Appropriate human likeness for social robots is said to increase trust and acceptance. Whether this applies to human communication features like dialog initiative needs to be investigated. Dialog initiative could be unacceptable for a robot, depending on the dialog content. Hence, the presented study investigates how a social robot’s proactive verbal and non-verbal communication behavior affects trust and acceptance depending on dialog content and content presentation order. A laboratory study (n = 31) with a humanoid robot was conducted. Talk initiative (human/robot) and the robot’s gaze behavior (directed/random) were manipulated. Dialog content was alternated between a service task and small talk. The subject’s trust, acceptance and human-robot proximity were assessed. Whereas a directed gaze was perceived as more humanlike and was more accepted during small talk, no gaze preference for the service task emerged. There was no preference for who initiated the small talk but for the service task, robot initiative led to higher trust in the robot when the service task was the first interaction. Participant’s self-reported trust in the robot was associated with the distance they kept to the robot. Different gaze and proactive strategies seem to be efficient to foster trust and acceptance in social robots for different dialog contents and thus should be considered when designing interaction strategies for social robots.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Admoni H, Scassellati B (2017) Social Eye Gaze in Human-Robot Interaction: A Review. J Human-Robot Interaction 6(1):25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Aliasghari P, Taheri A, Meghdari A, Maghsoodi E (2020) Implementing a gaze control system on a social robot in multi-person interactions. SN Appl Sci p 1135, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2911-0

  3. 3.

    Argyle M, Dean J (1965) Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry pp 289–304

  4. 4.

    Argyle M, Ingham R (1972) Gaze, Mutual Gaze, and Proximity. J Int Assoc Semiot Stud 6(1):32–49

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bailenson JN, Blascovich J, Beall AC, Loomis JM (2003) Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality Soc Psychol Bull 29(7):819–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bangalore S, Fabbrizio GD, Stent A (2006) Learning the Structure of Task-Driven Human-Human Dialogs. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp 201–208

  7. 7.

    Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):71–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bickmore T, Cassell J (1999) Small talk and conversational storytelling in embodied conversational interface agents. In: AAAI fall symposium on narrative intelligence, pp 87–92

  9. 9.

    Bickmore TW, Picard RW (2005) Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Trans Comput-Human Interaction 12(2):293–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Blanca JM, Alarcon R, Bono R, Bendayan R (2017) Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema 4(29):552–557. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Buck JW, Perugini S, Nguyen TV (2018) Natural language, mixed-initiative personal assistant agents. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on ubiquitous information management and communication, ACM, p 82

  12. 12.

    Burgess JW (1983) Interpersonal spacing behavior between surrounding nearest neighbors reflects both familiarity and environmental density. Ethol Sociobiol 4(1):11–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Capurro R. (2019) Ethical Issues of Humanoid-Human Interaction. In: Goswami A., Vadakkepat P. (eds) Humanoid Robotics: A Reference. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6046-2_127

  14. 14.

    Choi JJ, Kim Y, Kwak SS (2013) Have you ever lied?: the impacts of gaze avoidance on people’s perception of a robot. In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), IEEE, pp 105–106

  15. 15.

    Clodic A, Alami R, Montreuil V, Li S, Wrede B, Swadzba A (2007) A study of interaction between dialog and decision for human-robot collaborative task achievement. In: Proceedings - IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 913–918

  16. 16.

    Cristani M, Paggetti G, Vinciarelli A, Bazzani L, Menegaz G, Murino V (2011) Towards computational proxemics: Inferring social relations from interpersonal distances. In: 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE third international conference on social computing, IEEE, pp 290–297

  17. 17.

    Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philos Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 362(1480):679–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Doran C, Aberdeen J, Damianos L, Hirschman L (2007) Comparing several aspects of human-computer and human-human dialogues. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Endrass B, Rehm M, André E (2011) Planning small talk behavior with cultural influences for multiagent systems. Comput Speech Lang 25(2):158–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Eresha G, Haring M, Endrass B, Andre E, Obaid M (2013) Investigating the influence of culture on proxemic behaviors for humanoid robots. Proceedings - IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication pp 430–435

  21. 21.

    Fink J (2012) Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 7621 LNAI:199–208

  22. 22.

    Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Autonom Syst 42(3–4):143–166

    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Garau M, Slater M, Bee S, Sasse MA (2001) The impact of eye gaze on communication using humanoid avatars. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 309–316

  24. 24.

    Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In: The 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003., Ieee, pp 55–60

  25. 25.

    Gong L (2008) How social is social responses to computers? the function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Comput Human Behavior 24(4):1494–1509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Gravano A, Hirschberg J (2011) Turn-taking cues in task-oriented dialogue. Comput Speech Lang 25(3):601–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Hall ET (1974) Handbook for proxemic research. Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication

  28. 28.

    Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JY, De Visser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors 53(5):517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Haring KS, Matsumoto Y, Watanabe K (2013) How do people perceive and trust a lifelike robot. Proc World Congr Eng Comput Sci I:23–25

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Henkel Z, Bethel CL, Murphy RR, Srinivasan V (2014) Evaluation of proxemic scaling functions for social robotics. IEEE Trans Human-Machine Syst 44(3):374–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hoff KA, Bashir M (2015) Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum Factors 57(3):407–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Jan D, Herrera D, Martinovski B, Novick D, Traum D (2007) A computational model of culture-specific conversational behavior. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics) 4722 LNCS:45–56, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74997-4_5

  33. 33.

    Jarrassé N, Sanguineti V, Burdet E (2014) Slaves no longer: Review on role assignment for human-robot joint motor action. Adapt Behavior 22(1):70–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Jian JY, Bisantz AM, Drury CG (2000) Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. Int J Cogn Ergonom 4(1):53–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Karrer K, Glaser C, Clemens C, Bruder C (2009) Technikaffinität erfassen - der Fragebogen TA-EG. Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme 8:196–201

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kleinke CL (1968) Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychol Bull 100(I):78–100

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Koay KL, Dautenhahn K, Woods S, Walters ML (2006) Empirical results from using a comfort level device in human-robot interaction studies. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction, ACM, pp 194–201

  38. 38.

    Koda T, Hirano T, Ishioh T (2017) Development and perception evaluation of culture-specific gaze behaviors of virtual agents. In: International conference on intelligent virtual agents, Springer, pp 213–222

  39. 39.

    Kraus JM (2020) Psychological processes in the formation and calibration of trust in automation. Dissertation Ulm University. https://doi.org/10.18725/OPARU-32583

  40. 40.

    Kraus JM, Nothdurft F, Hock P, Scholz D, Minker W, Baumann M (2016) Human after all: Effects of mere presence and social interaction of a humanoid robot as a co-driver in automated driving. In: Adjunct proceedings of the 8th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, ACM, New York, NY, USA, AutomotiveUI ’16 Adjunct, pp 129–134

  41. 41.

    Kraus M, Kraus J, Baumann M, Minker W (2018) Effects of gender stereotypes on trust and likability in spoken human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC (2018) european language resources association (ELRA). Miyazaki, Japan

  42. 42.

    Kraus, J., Scholz, D., & Baumann, M. (2020) What’s driving me? - Exploration and validation of a hierarchical personality model for trust in automated driving. Human Factors. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820922653

  43. 43.

    Lambert, D. (2004) Body language. New York: HarperCollins

  44. 44.

    Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Human Fact: J Human Fact Ergonom Soc 46(1):50–80

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Lee MK, Makatchev M (2009) How do people talk with a robot? Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI EA ’09 p 3769

  46. 46.

    Leichtmann, B., & Nitsch, V. (2020). How much distance do humans keep toward robots? Literature review, meta-analysis, and theoretical considerations on personal space in human-robot interaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101386

  47. 47.

    Looije R, Neerincx MA, Cnossen F (2010) Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: design and evaluation of social behaviors. Int J Human-Comput Stud 68(6):386–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Madsen M, Gregor S (2000) Measuring human-computer trust. In: 11th australasian conference on information systems, Citeseer, vol 53, pp 6–8

  49. 49.

    Matthews G, Lin J, Panganiban AR, Long MD (2020) Individual differences in trust in autonomous robots: implications for transparency. IEEE Trans Human-Mach Syst 50(3):234–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Mavridis N (2015) A review of verbal and non-verbal human-robot interactive communication. Robot Autonom Syst 63:22–35

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Merritt SM, Heimbaugh H, LaChapell J, Lee D (2013) I trust it, but i don’t know why: Effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Human Factors 55(3):520–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Mumm, J., & Mutlu, B. (2011, March). Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction (pp. 331–338)

  53. 53.

    Miller L, Kraus J, Babel F, Baumann M (2020a) More than a feeling - interrelation of different trust layers in human-robot interaction and effects of user dispositions and state anxiety. [Manuscript submitted for publication]

  54. 54.

    Miller L, Kraus J, Babel F, Messner M, Baumann M (2020b) Come closer: Experimental investigation of robots’ appearance on proximity, affect and trust in a domestic environment. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (HFES 2020)

  55. 55.

    Niculescu A, van Dijk B, Nijholt A, Li H, See SL (2013) Making social robots more attractive: the effects of voice pitch, humor and empathy. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):171–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Nomura T, Kanda T (2015) Influences of evaluation and gaze from a robot and humans’ fear of negative evaluation on their preferences of the robot. Int J Soc Robot 7(2):155–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K (2008) Prediction of human behavior in human-robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots. IEEE Trans Robot 24(2):442–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Normoyle A, Badler JB, Fan T, Badler NI, Cassol VJ, Musse SR (2013) Evaluating perceived trust from procedurally animated gaze. In: Proceedings of motion on games, ACM, pp 141–148

  59. 59.

    Oleson KE, Billings DR, Kocsis V, Chen JY, Hancock PA (2011) Antecedents of trust in human-robot collaborations. In: 2011 IEEE international multi-disciplinary conference on cognitive methods in situation awareness and decision support (CogSIMA), IEEE, pp 175–178

  60. 60.

    Paradeda RB, Hashemian M, Rodrigues RA, Paiva A (2016) How facial expressions and small talk may influence trust in a robot. In: International conference on social robotics, Springer, pp 169–178

  61. 61.

    Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors 39(2):230–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Petrak B, Weitz K, Aslan I, Andre E (2019) Let Me Show You Your New Home: Studying the Effect of Proxemic-awareness of Robots on Users’ First Impressions. In (2019) 28th IEEE international conference robot human interactive communications RO-MAN 2019: doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956463

  63. 63.

    Prabhakaran V, Rambow O (2013) Written dialog and social power: Manifestations of different types of power in dialog behavior. In: Proceedings of the sixth international joint conference on natural language processing, pp 216–224

  64. 64.

    Reeves B, Nass CI (1996) The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Reinhardt J, Pereira A, Beckert D, Bengler K (2017) Dominance and movement cues of robot motion: A user study on trust and predictability. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC), IEEE, pp 1493–1498

  66. 66.

    Riek LD (2012) Wizard of oz studies in hri: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. J Human-Robot Interaction 1(1):119–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Salem M, Eyssel F, Rohlfing K, Kopp S, Joublin F (2013a) To err is human (-like): Effects of robot gesture on perceived anthropomorphism and likability. Int J Soc Robotics 5(3):313–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Salem M, Ziadee M, Sakr M (2013b) Effects of politeness and interaction context on perception and experience of hri. In: International conference on social robotics, Springer, pp 531–541

  69. 69.

    Sanders T, Oleson KE, Billings DR, Chen JY, Hancock PA (2011) A model of human-robot trust: Theoretical model development. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society pp 1432–1436, arXiv:1011.1669v3

  70. 70.

    Saunderson S, Nejat G (2019) How robots influence humans: a survey of nonverbal communication in social human-robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 11(4):575–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00523-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Stanton C, Stevens C (2014) Robot pressure: The impact of robot eye gaze and lifelike bodily movements upon decision-making and trust. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 8755:330–339

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Stanton CJ, Stevens C (2017) Don’t stare at me: the impact of a humanoid robot’s Gaze upon trust during a cooperative human-robot visual task. Int J Soc Robotics 9(5):745–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, vol 5. Pearson Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Takayama L, Pantofaru C (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. 2009 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, IROS 2009 pp 5495–5502

  75. 75.

    Van Der Laan JD, Heino A, De Waard D (1997) A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transp Res Part C: Emerging Technol 5(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    von Zitzewitz J, Boesch PM, Wolf P, Riener R (2013) Quantifying the human likeness of a humanoid robot. Int J Soc Robotics 5(2):263–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Walters M (2009) An Empirical Framework for Human-Robot Proxemics. In: Proceedings of new frontiers in human-robot interaction: symposium at the AISB09 convention, pp 144–149

  78. 78.

    Walters ML, Oskoei MA, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K (2011) A long-term Human-Robot Proxemic study. In: Proceeding of IEEE international work robot human interactive communications pp 137–142, https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2011.6005274

  79. 79.

    Waytz A, Heafner J, Epley N (2014) The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J Exp Soc Psychol 52:113–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Zaraki A, Mazzei D, Giuliani M, De Rossi D (2014) Designing and evaluating a social gaze-control system for a humanoid robot. IEEE Trans Human-Mach Syst 44(2):157–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The co-author Matthias Kraus has received funding by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and Robert Bosch GmbH.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franziska Babel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

See Appendix Table 4.

Table 4 Self-developed items and manipulation checks

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Babel, F., Kraus, J., Miller, L. et al. Small Talk with a Robot? The Impact of Dialog Content, Talk Initiative, and Gaze Behavior of a Social Robot on Trust, Acceptance, and Proximity. Int J of Soc Robotics (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00730-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Human-robot interaction
  • Social robots
  • Proactivity
  • Trust
  • Acceptance
  • Proximity