Perceptions and Responsiveness to Intimacy with Robots; A User Evaluation

  • Chamari EdirisingheEmail author
  • Adrian David Cheok
  • Nosiba Khougali
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10715)


In human-robot interactions research it is significant to question what measures humans will take to contest the challenges and what will become of them. Levy hypothesizes that robots will stimulate human senses with their many capabilities and humans will accept them as intimate companions because the human perception of intimacy will transform to accommodate various nuances. However, the question remains, how much humans understand and accept intimacies with robots. We argue that perceptions of human-robot interactions (HRI) and intimate interactions with robots have a certain impact on how individuals comprehend intimacies with robots. Long term contact with robots, in terms of robotic technology and conversations, will change our views and practices regarding intimacy with robots. Our study revealed that lack of awareness of the potentials of future AI robots has created a fear; fear of losing both tangible, intangible, and the sense of dominance. Yet, our participants’ intimate interactions with robots produced varying degree of responses that, we believe are revealing another scope of human-robot interactions.


Robots Intimacies Human-robot interactions Perceptions Touch 


  1. 1.
    Levy, D.: Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships. Harper Collins, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Servaes, J.: Introduction to the 3 as: technology is great. In: Technological Determinism and Social Change: Communication in a Tech-Mad World, pp. xiii–xxiii. Lexington Books, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurzweil, R.: The singularity is near1. In: Ethics and Emerging Technologies, p. 393 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nass, C., Moon, Y.: Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56(1), 81–103 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Turkle, S.: The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asimov, I.: Runaround. Astounding Sci. Fiction 29(1), 94–103 (1942)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Piçarra, N., Giger, J.C., Pochwatko, G., Gonçalves, G.: Making sense of social robots: a structural analysis of the layperson’s social representation of robots. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology 66(6), 277–289 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nowachek, M.T.: Why robots can’t become racist, and why humans can. PhaenEx 9(1), 57–88 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Graaf, M.M.: An ethical evaluation of human-robot relationships. Int. J. Soci. Robot. 8(4), 589–598 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaplan, F.: Who is afraid of the humanoid? investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. Int. J. Humanoid Rob. 1(03), 465–480 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L., Werry, I.: What is a robot companion-friend, assistant or butler? In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, (IROS 2005), pp. 1192–1197. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kahn Jr., P.H., Ruckert, J.H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Reichert, A., Gary, H., Shen, S.: Psychological intimacy with robots?: using interaction patterns to uncover depth of relation. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 123–124. IEEE Press (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, J., Ju, W., Reeves, B.: Touching a mechanical body: tactile contact with intimate parts of a humanoid robot is physiologically arousing. In: 66th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Fukuoka, Japan (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scheutz, M., Arnold, T.: Are we ready for sex robots? In: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 351–358. IEEE Press (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Szczuka, J.M., Krämer, N.C.: Influences on the intention to buy a sex robot. In: Cheok, A.D., Devlin, K., Levy, D. (eds.) LSR 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10237, pp. 72–83. Springer, Cham (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abdi, H.: Guttman Scaling. Encyclopedia of Research Design. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Edirisinghe, C., Cheok, A.D.: Robots and intimacies: a preliminary study of perceptions, and intimacies with robots. In: Cheok, A.D., Devlin, K., Levy, D. (eds.) LSR 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10237, pp. 137–147. Springer, Cham (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Russell, S.: Should we fear supersmart robots. Sci. Am. 314(6), 58–59 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shibata, T., Tashima, T., Tanie, K.: Emergence of emotional behavior through physical interaction between human and robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1999, vol. 4, pp. 2868–2873. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Denning, T., Matuszek, C., Koscher, K., Smith, J.R., Kohno, T.: A spotlight on security and privacy risks with future household robots: attacks and lessons. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 105–114. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Wielinga, B., Evers, V.: Enjoyment intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 113–120. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Civitas Books, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mori, M., MacDorman, K.F., Kageki, N.: The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Rob. Autom. Mag. 19(2), 98–100 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hanson, D., Olney, A., Prilliman, S., Mathews, E., Zielke, M., Hammons, D., Fernandez, R., Stephanou, H.: Upending the uncanny valley. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 20, p. 1728. AAAI Press, MIT Press, Menlo Park, Cambridge, London (1999, 2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scheutz, M., Arnold, T.: Intimacy, bonding, and sex robots: examining empirical results and exploring ethical ramifications. In: Danaher, J., McArthur, N. (eds.) Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications (Working title). MIT Press (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jinnai, N., Sumioka, H., Minato, T., Ishiguro, H.: The impact of a humanlike communication medium on the development of intimate human relationship. In: Cheok, A.D., Devlin, K., Levy, D. (eds.) LSR 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10237, pp. 104–114. Springer, Cham (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P.A., Price, T.F.: Does negative affect always narrow and positive affect always broaden the mind? considering the influence of motivational intensity on cognitive scope. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22(4), 301–307 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gable, P.A., Harmon-Jones, E.: Does arousal per se account for the influence of appetitive stimuli on attentional scope and the late positive potential? Psychophysiology 50(4), 344–350 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chamari Edirisinghe
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Adrian David Cheok
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nosiba Khougali
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Imagineering InstituteIskandar PuteriMalaysia
  2. 2.City, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations