A Robot that Encourages Self-disclosure by Hug

  • Masahiro Shiomi
  • Aya Nakata
  • Masayuki Kanbara
  • Norihiro Hagita
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10652)


This paper presents the effects of being hugged by a robot to encourage self-disclosure. Physical interactions, which are known to be essential for communication with others, also show the effects of eliciting self-disclosure from the people with whom one is interacting and contribute to the construction of social relationships. Previous research demonstrated that people who touched a robot experienced positive impressions of it without clarifying whether being hugged by a robot elicits self-disclosure from people. We developed a huge, teddy-bear-like robot that can give reciprocal hugs to people and experimentally investigated its effects on self-disclosure. Our experiment results with 32 participants showed that those who were hugged by the robot significantly offered more self-disclosure than those who were not hugged by it. Moreover, people who were hugged by the robot interacted with it longer than those who were not hugged by it. On the other hand, the perceived feelings about the robot were not significantly different between the conditions.


Hug Human-robot interaction Self-disclosure 



This research work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP15H05322 and JP16K12505.


  1. 1.
    Yun, S.-S., Kim, M., Choi, M.-T.: Easy interface and control of tele-education robots. Int. J. Social Robot. 5(3), 335–343 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shiomi, M., et al.: Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? Int. J. Social Robot. 7(5), 641–652 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Komatsubara, T., Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: Can a social robot help children’s understanding of science in classrooms? In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 83–90 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tanaka, F., Isshiki, K., Takahashi, F., Uekusa, M., Sei, R., Hayashi, K.: Pepper learns together with children: development of an educational application. In: 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), pp. 270–275 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tanaka, F., Matsuzoe, S.: Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning: field experiments in a classroom for vocabulary learning. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 1(1) (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Felzmann, H., Beyan, T., Ryan, M., Beyan, O.: Implementing an ethical approach to big data analytics in assistive robotics for elderly with dementia. SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 45(3), 280–286 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mordoch, E., Osterreicher, A., Guse, L., Roger, K., Thompson, G.: Use of social commitment robots in the care of elderly people with dementia: a literature review. Maturitas 74(1), 14–20 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shiomi, M., et al.: Effectiveness of social behaviors for autonomous wheelchair robot to support elderly people in Japan. PLoS ONE 10(5), e0128031 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Oleari, E., Bagherzadhalimi, A., Sacchitelli, F., Kiefer, B., Racioppa, S., Pozzi, C., Sanna, A.: Young users’ perception of a social robot displaying familiarity and eliciting disclosure. In: International Conference on Social Robotics, pp. 380–389 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Birnbaum, G.E., Mizrahi, M., Hoffman, G., Reis, H.T., Finkel, E.J., Sass, O.: What robots can teach us about intimacy: the reassuring effects of robot responsiveness to human disclosure. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 416–423 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martelaro, N., Nneji, V. C., Ju, W., Hinds, P.: Tell me more: designing HRI to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship. In: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 181–188 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lucas, G.M., et al.: It’s only a computer: virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Comput. Hum. Behav. 37, 94–100 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mumm, J., Mutlu, B.: 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 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang, C.-M., Iio, T., Satake, S., Kanda, T.: Modeling and controlling friendliness for an interactive museum robot. In: Robotics: Science and Systems (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanda, T., Sato, R., Saiwaki, N., Ishiguro, H.: A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans. Rob. 23(5), 962–971 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kanda, T., et al.: A communication robot in a shopping mall. IEEE Trans. Robot. 26(5), 897–913 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weizenbaum, J.: ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun. ACM 9(1), 36–45 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moon, Y.: Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. J. Consumer Res. 26(4), 323–339 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cozby, P.C.: Self-disclosure: a literature review. Psychol. Bull. 79(2), 73 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Powers, A., Kiesler, S., Fussell, S., Torrey, C.: Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In: 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 145–152 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sumioka, H., Nakae, A., Kanai, R., Ishiguro, H.: Huggable communication medium decreases cortisol levels. Sci. Rep. 3, 3034 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shiomi, M., Nakagawa, K., Shinozawa, K., Matsumura, R., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: Does a robot’s touch encourage human effort? Int. J. Social Robot., 1–11 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yu, R., Hui, E., Lee, J., Poon, D., Ng, A., Sit, K., Ip, K., Yeung, F., Wong, M., Shibata, T.: Use of a therapeutic, socially assistive pet robot (PARO) in improving mood and stimulating social interaction and communication for people with dementia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res. Protocols 4(2) (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nakagawa, K., Shiomi, M., Shinozawa, K., Matsumura, R., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: Effect of robot’s whispering behavior on people’s motivation. Int. J. Social Robot. 5(1), 5–16 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fukuda, H., Shiomi, M., Nakagawa, K., Ueda, K.: ‘Midas touch’ in human-robot interaction: evidence from event-related potentials during the ultimatum game. In: 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 131–132 (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shiomi, M., Nakata, A., Kanbara, M., Hagita, N.: A hug from a robot encourages prosocial behavior. In: 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (2017, to appear)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bartz, J.A., Zaki, J., Bolger, N., Ochsner, K.N.: Social effects of oxytocin in humans: context and person matter. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15(7), 301–309 (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burgoon, J.K., Buller, D.B., Hale, J.L., Turck, M.A.: Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Hum. Commun. Res. 10(3), 351–378 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fisher, J.D., Rytting, M., Heslin, R.: Hands touching hands: affective and evaluative effects of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry 39(4), 416–421 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gallace, A., Spence, C.: The science of interpersonal touch: an overview. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 34(2), 246–259 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jourard, S.M., Rubin, J.E.: Self-disclosure and touching: A study of two modes of interpersonal encounter and their inter-relation. J. Humanistic Psychol. 8(1), 39–48 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kawai, H., Toda, T., Ni, J., Tsuzaki, M., Tokuda, K.: XIMERA: a new TTS from ATR based on corpus-based technologies. In: ISCA Speech Synthesis Workshop, pp. 179–184 (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., Ahrenberg, L.: Wizard of oz studies: why and how. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 193–200 (1993)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hall, E.T.: The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday, Garden City (1966)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., Bracken, C.C.: Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum. Commun. Res. 28(4), 587–604 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cohen, J.: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 20(1), 37–46 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masahiro Shiomi
    • 1
  • Aya Nakata
    • 1
    • 2
  • Masayuki Kanbara
    • 1
    • 2
  • Norihiro Hagita
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.ATR-IRCKyotoJapan
  2. 2.NAISTNaraJapan

Personalised recommendations