Advertisement

Keep an Eye on the Task! How Gender Typicality of Tasks Influence Human–Robot Interactions

  • Dieta Kuchenbrandt
  • Markus Häring
  • Jessica Eichberg
  • Friederike Eyssel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7621)

Abstract

In the present experiment, we tested the impact of the gender typicality of a human–robot interaction (HRI) task on the user’s performance during HRI, and on evaluation and acceptance of the robot. N = 73 participants (38 males and 35 females) performed either a stereotypically male or a stereotypically female task while being instructed by either a ‘male’ or a ‘female’ robot. Our results revealed that gender typicality of the task substantially influenced our dependent measures: Specifically, more errors occurred when participants collaborated with the robot in context of a typically female work domain. Moreover, participants were less willing to accept help from the robot in a future task when they performed a typically female task. These effects were independent of robot and participant gender. Furthermore, when instructing participants on a female task, the male and the female robot were perceived as equally competent. In contrast, when instructing participants on a male task, the female robot was perceived as more competent compared to the male robot. Our findings will be discussed with regard to theoretical and practical implications.

Keywords

Gender human-robot interaction robot evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dario, P., Guglielmelli, E., Laschi, C., Teti, G.: MOVAID: a personal robot in everyday life of disabled and elderly people. Technol. Disabil. 10, 77–93 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krikke, J.: Japan’s robot developers go Linux. LinuxInsider (2003), retrieved http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32281.html (visited May 5, 2012)
  3. 3.
    Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: The influence of a robot’s social abilities on acceptance by elderly users. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 521–526 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berk, R.A., Berk, S.F.: Labor and leisure at home: Content and organization of houshold day. Sage, San Francisco (1979)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thompson, L., Walker, A.J.: Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood. J. of Marriage and Fam. 51, 845–871 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bussey, K., Bandura, A.: Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psych. Rev. 106, 676–713 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harper, M., Schoeman, W.J.: Influences of gender as a basic-level category in person perception on the gender belief system. Sex Roles 49, 517–526 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eyssel, F., Hegel, F.: (S)he’s got the look: Gender stereotyping of social robots. J. of Appl. Soc. Psych. (in press) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eyssel, F., Kuchenbrandt, D., Bobinger, S., de Ruiter, L., Hegel, F.: ’If you sound like me, you must be more human’: On the interplay of robot and user features on human-robot acceptance and anthropomorphism. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 125–126 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Powers, A., Kramer, A.D.I., Lim, S., Kuo, J., Lee, S.-L., Kiesler, S.: Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 158–163 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siegel, M., Breazeal, C., Norton, M.I.: Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2563–2568 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schermerhorn, P., Scheutz, M., Crowell, C.: Robot social presence and gender: Do females view robots differently than males? In: The Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 263–270 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mutlu, B., Osman, S., Forlizzi, J., Hodgins, J., Kiesler, S.: Perceptions of Asimo: Task structure and user attributes as elements of human-robot interaction design. Extended Abstracts of the 15th IEEE Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive, pp. 351–352 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., Powers, A.: Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 55–60 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ishiguro, H., Ono, T., Imai, M., Maeda, T., Nakatsu, R., Kanda, T.: Robovie: An interactive humanoid robot. Int. J. of Indust. Robots, 498–503 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salem, M., Eyssel, F., Rohlfing, K., Kopp, S., Joublin, F.: Effects of Gesture on the Perception of Psychological Anthropomorphism: A Case Study with a Humanoid Robot. In: Mutlu, B., Bartneck, C., Ham, J., Evers, V., Kanda, T. (eds.) ICSR 2011. LNCS, vol. 7072, pp. 31–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crowell, C.R., Scheutz, M., Schermerhorn, P., Villano, M.: Gendered voice and robot entities: perceptions and reactions of male and female subjects. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3735–3741 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dieta Kuchenbrandt
    • 1
  • Markus Häring
    • 2
  • Jessica Eichberg
    • 2
  • Friederike Eyssel
    • 1
  1. 1.Center of Excellence in Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)BielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Computer Science, Human Centered MultimediaAugsburg UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations