Advertisement

NAO Robot, Transmitter of Social Cues: What Impacts?

The Example with “Endowment effect”
  • Olivier Masson
  • Jean Baratgin
  • Frank Jamet
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10350)

Abstract

Assuming that social norms are engaged in all human-human interactions in an automatic manner, how to program a robot as to activate respect of social norms from humans? We argue that endowment effect, constituting a bias in decision making, could be produced by a “politeness effect” within the exchange paradigm of Knetsch (1989). To test this hypothesis, NAO, a humanoid robot took the place of the human experimenter and was programmed to behave in a neutral way, annihilating all non-verbal social cues emission. In this condition, politeness rules had been respected by minority in contrast with the same methodology lead by a human. Following this experiment, NAO was programmed as to re-activate social norms, using several non-verbal social cues: face tracking, intonations of voice and gestures. First results in this way tend to show the impact of non-verbal social cues, producing an endowment effect again.

Keywords

Perceptual Robots Motor Cognitive Emotional Social Communication Systems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support for this work was provided, by a grant from the ANR Chorus 2011(project BTAFDOC), and by a grant of Institut des Sciences Complexes (2014-ISC-PIF petits et moyens équipements).

References

  1. 1.
    Apicella, C.L., et al.: Evolutionary origins of the endowment effect: evidence from Hunter-Gatherers. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 1793–1805 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baddoura, R., Venture, G.: Social vs. useful HRI: experiencing the familiar, perceiving the robot as a sociable partner and responding to its actions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5, 529–547 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilma-Bainbridge, A., et al.: The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3, 41–52 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bakeman, R., Brownlee, J.R.: Social rules governing object conflicts in toddlers and preschoolers. In: Rubin, K.H., Ross, H.S. (eds.) Peer Relationships and Social Skills in Childhood, pp. 99–111. Springer, New York (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baratgin, J.: Effet de dotation et normes sociales: une approche inter-culturelle. In : Symposium on ICAP (2014). http://www.icap2014.com/program-detail_830/effet-de-dotation-et-normes-sociales-une-approche-inter-culturelle?date=8
  6. 6.
    Jamet, F., Baratgin, J., Godin, P.: Don, droit, coutume, cultures. Études expérimentales sur l’effet de dotation. In: Puigelier, C., Tijus, C., Jouen, F. (eds.) Droit, décision et prise de décision. Mare et Martin (Collection Science et Droit), Paris (in press)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baratgin, J.: Le raisonnement humain: Une approche finettienne. Hermann, Paris (in press)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baratgin, J., Jamet, F., Ruggieri, F., Masson, O.: Stupid NAO and Piaget’s class inclusion question: a new argument for the relevance-theoretic explanation. In: IEEE Sixth Joint International Conference on Developmental Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL-EPIROB 2016), Cergy, France, 19–22 September 2016Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bartneck, C., Forlizzi, J.: A design centred framework for social human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2004), pp. 591–594 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Breazeal, C. et al.: Humanoid robots as cooperative partners for people. IJHR (2004, submit)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brosnan, S.F., et al.: Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proc. R. Soc. B. 272, 253–258 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cassell, J., et al.: Embodiment in conversational interfaces: rea. In: Proceedings of the CHI 1999 Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 520–527 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drayon, L.A., Brosnan, S.F., Carrigan, J., Stoinski, T.S.: Endowment effect in gorillas. J. Comp. Psychol. 127(4), 365–369 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dumais, M.-L., Jamet, F., Baratgin, J.: Endowment effect among 6–7 years old children in French Guiana. In: 2nd International Seminar Paradigms in the Social Sciences – Present and Future, PSS 2015. IPP-WPiA UJK, Kielce, 1–2 December 2015Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flemming, T.E., et al.: Endowment effects in orangutans. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 25, 285–298 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gelman, S.A., et al.: The nonobvious basis of ownership: preschool children trace the history and value of owned objects. Child Dev. 83(5), 1732–1747 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hattori, I., Baratgin, J., Jamet, F., Masasi, H.: Rethinking the endowment effect: an experiment in Japan. 28ème Congrès International de Psychologie appliquée, Paris, France (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huck, S., Kirchsteiger, G., Oechssler, J.: Learning to like what you have: explaining the endowment effect. Econ. J. 505, 10–21 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jamet, F., Baratgin, J.: The endowment effect: a cultural and developmental approach. In: Japan-France Joint Workshop on Reasoning, Tennoji, Shirahama, Japan (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jamet, F., Baratgin, J., Bearune, C. : Effet de dotation chez des enfants Kanak. Nouméa. Presse Universitaire de Nouvelle-Caéldonie (in press)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jamet, F., Saïbou-Dumont, M.-S.: Effet de dotation chez l’enfant Saramaca: une approche développementale et culturelle. 28ème Congrès Internationale de Psychology appliquée, Paris, France (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kahneman, D., et al.: Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. J. Polit. Econ. 98, 1325–1348 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 313–327 (1979)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Choices, values and frames. Am. Psychol. 39, 341–350 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kahneman, D., et al.: Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J. Econ. Perspect. 5(1), 193–206 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Knetsch, J.L.: The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. Am. Econ. Rev. 79(5), 1277–1284 (1989)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Knetsch, J.L., Wong, W.-K.: The endowment effect and the reference state: evidence and manipulations. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 71, 407–413 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lakshminarayanan, V., et al.: Endowment effect in capuchin monkeys. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B 363, 3837–3844 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Masson, O., Baratgin, J., Jamet, F.: NAO robot and the endowment effect. In: IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO 2015), Lyon, France, pp. 1–6 (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Masson, O., Baratgin, J., Jamet, F., Ruggieri, F., Filatova, D.: Use a robot to serve experimental psychology: some examples of methods with children and adults. In: IEEE Information and Digital Technologies 2016, Workshop: Dynamical Systems and Real World Applications, Rzeszow, Poland, 5–7 July 2016 (2016, submitted)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prou, J.-P., Jamet, F., Baratgin, J.: Endowment effect among 3–5 years old Kanak preschoolers. In: 2nd International Seminar Paradigms in the Social Sciences – Present and Future, PSS 2015. IPP-WPiA UJK, Kielce (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reb, J., Connolly, T.: Possession, feelings of ownership and the endowment effect. Judgm. Decis. Making 2, 107–114 (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Saïbou-Dumont, M.-S., Jamet, F., Baratgin, J.: Endowment effect among 7 to 10 years old Awala Yalimapo tribal children. In: 2nd International Seminar Paradigms in the Social Sciences – Present and Future, PSS 2015. IPP-WPiA UJK, Kielce (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shao, J., Jamet, F., Baratgin, J.: Une étude sur l’effet de dotation en Chine. 28ème Congrès Internationale de Psychology appliquée, Paris, France (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Siegel, M., et al.: Persuasive robotics: the influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2009, pp. 2563–2568. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Takayama, L., Pantofaru, C.: Influences on proxemic, behaviors in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thaler, R.: Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1(1), 39–60 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wanguene, M.-L., Jamet, F., Baratgin, J.: Endowment effect and custom among 9 years old Kanka tribal children. In: 2nd International Seminar Paradigms in the Social Sciences – Present and Future, PSS 2015, IPP-WPiA UJK, Kielce (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wilcock, G., et al.: Speech, gaze and gesturing: multimodal conversational interaction with Nao robot. In: ENTERFACE 2012 Summer Workshop, Final Report Project, P1 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CHArt (P-A-R-I-S), Paris 8 and University and EPHEParisFrance
  2. 2.Institut J. Nicod, ENSParisFrance
  3. 3.University of Cergy-PontoiseCergyFrance

Personalised recommendations