Studies in Public Places as a Means to Positively Influence People’s Attitude towards Robots

  • Nicole Mirnig
  • Ewald Strasser
  • Astrid Weiss
  • Manfred Tscheligi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7621)


It is the aim of this paper to show on a meta-level how studies in public places can contribute to positively influence people’s attitude towards robots. By means of examining objective and subjective data gathered in the lab and data from field studies, it will be shown how people’s experiences with a robot outside the sheltering laboratory surroundings can help to value robots more positively. We argue, that studies in public places can serve as a means to enable many people with hands-on experiences and as proof-of-concept evaluation for researchers. We contrasted people’s explicit ratings of our robots and although the differences are rather subtle, they nevertheless reveal a tendency for the positive effect of field studies in public places. Additionally, we contrasted people’s implicit attitude towards robots which could support our assumption that people who interacted with robots in the field rate it significantly better than people who interacted with it in the lab.


field study lab study social awareness comparison study 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kriz, S., Ferro, T., Damera, P., Porter, J.: Fictional robots as a data source in hri research: Exploring the link between science fiction and interactional expectations. In: RO-MAN 2010, pp. 458–463 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    MacKenzie, D.: Inventing accuracy: A historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance. The MIT Press (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dautenhahn, K.: Robots in the wild: Exploring human-robot interaction in naturalistic environments. Interaction Studies 10(3), 269–273 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sabanovic, S., Michalowski, M., Simmons, R.: Robots in the wild: Observing human-robot social interaction outside the lab. In: Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, pp. 596–601 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Woods, S., Walters, M., Koay, K., Dautenhahn, K.: Methodological issues in hri: A comparison of live and video-based methods in robot to human approach direction trials. In: Proc. of RO-MAN 2006, pp. 51–58 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Suchman, L.: Reconfiguring human-robot relations. In: Proc. of RO-MAN 2006, pp. 652–654 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xu, Q., Ng, J.S.L., Cheong, Y.L., Tan, O.Y., Wong, J.B., Tay, B.T.C., Park, T.: Effect of scenario media on human-robot interaction evaluation. In: Proc. of HRI 2012, pp. 275–276 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weiss, A.: Validation of an Evaluation Framework for Human-Robot Interaction. The Impact of Usability, Social Acceptance, User Experience, and Societal Impact on Collaboration with Humanoid Robots. PhD thesis, University Salzburg (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kanda, T., Shiomi, M., Miyashita, Z., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: An affective guide robot in a shopping mall. In: Proc. of HRI 2009, pp. 173–180 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ljungblad, S., Kotrbova, J., Jacobsson, M., Cramer, H., Niechwiadowicz, K.: Hospital robot at work: something alien or an intelligent colleague? In: CSCW 2012, pp. 177–186 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yamazaki, A., Yamazaki, K., Ohyama, T., Kobayashi, Y., Kuno, Y.: A techno-sociological solution for designing a museum guide robot: regarding choosing an appropriate visitor. In: HRI 2012, pp. 309–316 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Payne, B., Cheng, C., Govorun, O., Stewart, B.: An inkblot for attitudes: affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(3), 277 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mirnig, N., Gonsior, B., Sosnowski, S., Landsiedel, C., Wollherr, D., Weiss, A., Tscheligi, M.: Feedback guidelines for multimodal human-robot interaction: How should a robot give feedback when asking for directions? In: RO-MAN 2012 (currently submitted, 2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al Moubayed, S., Beskow, J., Granström, B., Gustafson, J., Mirning, N., Skantze, G., Tscheligi, M.: Furhat goes to robotville: a large-scale multiparty human-robot interaction data collection in a public space. In: LREC Workshop on Multimodal Corporation (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Złotowski, J., Weiss, A., Tscheligi, M.: Navigating in public space: participants’ evaluation of a robot’s approach behavior. In: HRI 2012, pp. 283–284 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yamauchi, T., Ohno, T., Nakatani, M., Kato, Y., Markman, A.: Psychology of user experience in a collaborative video-conference system. In: CSCW 2012, pp. 187–196 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Houwer, J.: What are implicit measures and why are we using them. The Handbook of Implicit Cognition and Addiction, 11–28 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strasser, E., Weiss, A., Tscheligi, M.: Affect misattribution procedure: an implicit technique to measure user experience in hri. In: HRI 2012, pp. 243–244 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Mirnig
    • 1
  • Ewald Strasser
    • 1
  • Astrid Weiss
    • 1
  • Manfred Tscheligi
    • 1
  1. 1.HCI & Usability Unit of the ICT & S CenterUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations