Perception and Trust Towards a Lifelike Android Robot in Japan

  • Kerstin Sophie Haring
  • Yoshio Matsumoto
  • Katsumi Watanabe
Conference paper

Abstract

This paper reports the results from an experiment examining people’s perception and trust when interacting with an android robot. Also, they engaged in an economic trust game with the robot. We used the physical distance to the robot, and questionnaires to measure the participants’ character and their perception of the robot. We found influences of the subject’s character onto the amount sent in the trust game and distance changes over the three interaction tasks. The perception of the robot changed after the interaction trials towards less anthropomorph and less intelligent, but safer.

Keywords

Android robot Eysenck personality questionnaire Godspeed questionnaire Human robot interaction Robot perception Trust game 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank the Service Robotics Group of the Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) for the provision of the robot and the technical support. We also would like to thank Toru Hosokawa from the University of Tohoku for the copy of the Japanese version of the Eysenck personality questionnaire. This work was supported in part by the Mitsubishi Shoji Scholarship and the Japan Science and Technology Agency (CREST).

References

  1. 1.
    Z. Khan, Attitudes Towards Intelligent Service Robots, vol. 17 (NADA KTH, Stockholm, 1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Wainer, D.J. Feil-Seifer, D.A. Shell, M.J. Mataric, in The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2006. The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction (IEEE, 2006), pp. 117–122Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K.S. Haring, C. Mougenot, K. Watanabe, in 5th International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technologies (KST). Perception of different robot design. Special session on “Fluency in communication between human, machine, and environment” (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K.S. Haring, C. Mougenot, K. Watanabe, in 8th Annual Conference for Basic and Applied Human-Robot Interaction Research (HRI). The influence of robot appearance on assessment (Tokyo, 2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Mori, Bukimi No Tani (the uncanny valley). Energy 7, 33–35 (1970)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Berg, J. Dickhaut, K. McCabe, Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10(1), 122–142 (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    K.J. Swope, J. Cadigan, P.M. Schmitt, R. Shupp, Personality preferences in laboratory economics experiments. J. Socio-Econ 37(3), 998–1009 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Wischniewski, S. Windmann, G. Juckel, M. Brüne, Rules of social exchange: game theory, individual differences and psychopathology. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 33(3), 305–313 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Schmitt, R. Shupp, K. Swope, J. Mayer, Pre-commitment and personality: behavioral explanations in ultimatum games. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 66(3), 597–605 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Brandstätter, W. Güth, Personality in dictator and ultimatum games. CEJOR 10(3), 191–215 (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Ben-Ner, F. Kong, L. Putterman, Share and share alike? Gender-pairing, personality, and cognitive ability as determinants of giving. J. Econ. Psychol. 25(5), 581–589 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.L. Walters, K. L. Koay, D. S. Syrdal, K. Dautenhahn, and R. Boekhorst. “Preferences and perceptions of robot appearance and embodiment in human-robot interaction trials.” Procs of New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. DeSteno, C. Breazeal, R.H. Frank, D. Pizarro, J. Baumann, L. Dickens, J.J. Lee, Detecting the trustworthiness of novel partners in economic exchange. Psychol. Sci. 23(12), 1549–1556 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K.S. Haring, Y. Matsumoto, K. Watanabe, in Proceedings of The World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2013, WCECS 2013. How do people perceive and trust a lifelike robot? Lecture notes in engineering and computer science, San Francisco, 23–25 October 2013, pp. 425–431Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M.B. Mathur, D.B. Reichling, in Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. An uncanny game of trust: social trustworthiness of robots inferred from subtle anthropomorphic facial cues, (ACM, 2009), pp. 313–314Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M.L. Walters, K. Dautenhahn, K.L. Koay, C. Kaouri, S.N. Woods, C.L. Nehaniv, R. te Boekhorst, D. Lee, I. Werry, in Proceedings of Cog Sci 2005 Workshop: Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science. The influence of subjects’ personality traits on predicting comfortable human-robot approach distances’ (2005), pp. 29–37Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Takayama, C. Pantofaru, in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2009. Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction (IEEE, 2009), pp. 5495–5502Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.L. Walters, K. Dautenhahn, R. Boekhorst, K.L. Koay, C. Kaouri, S. Woods, C. Nehaniv, D. Lee, I. Werry, in IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2005. The influence of subjects’ personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment (IEEE, 2005), pp. 347–352Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Friedman, P.H. Kahn Jr, J. Hagman, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Hardware companions?: What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human-robotic relationship (ACM, 2003), pp. 273–280Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, M. Imai, T. Ono, in IJCAI. Body movement analysis of human-robot interaction (2003), pp. 177–182Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. Hosokawa, M. Ohyama, Reliability and validity of a Japanese version of the short-form Eysenck personality questionnaire-revised. Psychol. Rep. 72(3), 823–832 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Bartneck, D. Kulić, E. Croft, S. Zoghbi, Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(1), 71–81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    H.J. Eysenck, Manual of the Eysenck personality scales (EPS Adult). 23–24 (1991)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Parisi, M. Schlesinger, Artificial life and Piaget. Cogn. Dev. 17(3), 1301–1321 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Reeves, C. Nass, The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. Kleck, P.L. Buck, W.L. Goller, R.S. London, J.R. Pfeiffer, D.P. Vukcevic, Effect of stigmatizing conditions on the use of personal space. Psychol. Rep. 23(1), 111–118 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    E.T. Hall, E.T. Hall, The hidden dimension (Anchor Books, New York, 1969)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M.J. Hertenstein, D. Keltner, B. App, B.A. Bulleit, A.R. Jaskolka, Touch communicates distinct emotions. Emotion 6(3), 528 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    M.J. Hertenstein, J.M. Verkamp, A.M. Kerestes, R.M. Holmes, The communicative functions of touch in humans, nonhuman primates, and rats: a review and synthesis of the empirical research. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 132(1), 5–94 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    J.J. Edney, C.A. Walker, N. Jordan, Is there reactance in personal space? J. Soc. Psychol. 100(2), 207–217 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Mehrabian, Inference of attitudes from the posture, orientation, and distance of a communicator. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 32(3), 296 (1968)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerstin Sophie Haring
    • 1
  • Yoshio Matsumoto
    • 2
  • Katsumi Watanabe
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of TokyoMeguro-kuJapan
  2. 2.Tsukuba Central 2TsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations