Hadas Erel
Oren Zuckerman
ABSTRACT
Physical movement is a dominant element in robot behavior. We evaluate if robotic movements are automatically interpreted as social cues, even if the robot has no social role. 24 participants performed the Implicit Associations Test, classifying robotic gestures into direction categories ("to-front" or "to-back") and words into social categories (willingness or unwillingness for interaction). Our findings show that social interpretation of the robot's gestures is an automatic process. The implicit social interpretation influenced both classification tasks, and could not be avoided even when it decreased participant's performance. This effect is of importance for the HCI community as designers should consider, that even if a robot is not intended for social interaction (e.g. factory robot), people will not be able to avoid interpreting its movement as social cues. Interaction designers should leverage this phenomenon and consider the social interpretation that will be automatically associated with their robots' movement.
- Lucy Anderson-Bashan, Benny Megidish, Hadas Erel, Iddo Wald, Andrey Grishko, Guy Hoffman, and Oren Zuckerman. 2018. The Greeting Machine: An Abstract Robotic Object for Opening Encounters. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Joanna J Bryson. 2010. Robots should be slaves. Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key social, psychological, ethical and design issues (2010), 63--74.Google Scholar
- Brian R Duffy. 2003. Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and autonomous systems 42, 3 (2003), 177--190.Google Scholar
- Helen L Gallagher and Christopher D Frith. 2003. Functional imaging of theory of mind. Trends in cognitive sciences 7, 2 (2003), 77--83.Google Scholar
- Valeria Gazzola, Giacomo Rizzolatti, Bruno Wicker, and Christian Keysers. 2007. The anthropomorphic brain: the mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. Neuroimage 35, 4 (2007), 1674--1684.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel. 1944. An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American journal of psychology 57, 2 (1944), 243--259.Google Scholar
- Wendy Ju and Leila Takayama. 2009. Approachability: How people interpret automatic door movement as gesture. International Journal of Design 3, 2 (2009), 1--10.Google Scholar
- Michal Luria, Guy Hoffman, and Oren Zuckerman. 2017. Comparing social robot, screen and voice interfaces for smart-home control. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 580--628. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brian A Nosek, Anthony G Greenwald, and Mahzarin R Banaji. 2005. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31, 2 (2005), 166--180.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fumihide Tanaka and Madhumita Ghosh. 2011. The implementation of care-receiving robot at an English learning school for children. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, 265--266. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robert H Wortham, Andreas Theodorou, and Joanna J Bryson. 2016. What does the robot think? Transparency as a fundamental design requirement for intelligent systems. (2016).Google Scholar
- Stephen Yang, Brian Ka-Jun Mok, David Sirkin, Hillary Page Ive, Rohan Maheshwari, Kerstin Fischer, and Wendy Ju. 2015. Experiences developing socially acceptable interactions for a robotic trash barrel. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 277--284.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Robots are Always Social: Robotic Movements are Automatically Interpreted as Social Cues
Recommendations
Do social robots walk or roll?
ICSR'10: Proceedings of the Second international conference on Social roboticsThere is a growing trend of social robots to move into the human environment. This research is set up to find the trends within social robotic designs. A sample of social robotic designs is drawn to investigate on whether there are more legged social ...
A survey on the design and evolution of social robots — Past, present and future
AbstractDespite the relatively young age of Human–Robot Interaction (HRI) as a field, there is a large volume of research on advances in robot hardware, software and behavior. The goal of this article is to survey trends in social robot design,...
Highlights- Analyzed over 9000 research papers and examined 344 social robots from literature in great detail.
Social robots and the risks to reciprocity
AbstractA growing body of research can be found in which roboticists are designing for reciprocity as a key construct for successful human–robot interaction (HRI). Given the centrality of reciprocity as a component for our moral lives (for moral ...
Comments