NAO Robot, Transmitter of Social Cues: What Impacts?

The Example with “Endowment effect”
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)CrossRefMATHGoogle 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