research-article

Getting in Touch: How imagined, actual, and physical contact affect evaluations of robots

Authors:

Ricarda Wullenkord,

Marlena R. Fraune,

Friederike Eyssel,

Selma ŠabanovićAuthors Info & Claims

2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)

Pages 980 - 985

https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745228

Published: 01 August 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Although it is widely accepted that robots will be used in everyday contexts in near future, many people feel anxious and hold negative attitudes toward robots. This negative reaction might be stronger when users come into direct physical contact with them, particularly when touch is required between robots and humans, (e.g., when using robots as assistants to help elderly people at home). Intergroup contact research in social psychology has proposed various forms of contact as a means to reduce negative feelings toward outgroup members. The present study examined how Contact Type (Actual vs. Imagined) and Contact Modality (Look vs. Touch) with a NAO robot would impact attitudes toward NAO compared to a no-contact control condition. Results showed that nearly any type of contact effectively reduced negative emotions compared to the control condition. However, for participants with preexisting negative emotions toward robots, contact sometimes produced more negative attitudes. We discuss these findings and the resulting implications for future research.

References

[1]

Pew Research Center, “U.S. views of technology and the future”, April 2014, Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/04117/us

[2]

European Commission Public attitudes towards robots: A report, 2012.

[3]

T. Nomura and T. Kanda. “On proposing the concept of robot anxiety and considering measurement of it”, in Proc. 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Vancouver, 2003, pp. 373–378.

[4]

National Science Foundation's National Robotics Initiative (NRI). 2015.

[5]

J. Fink, S. Lemaignan, C. Braboszcz, and P. Dillenbourg, “Dynamics of Anthropomorphism in Human-Robot Interaction” Frontiers in Cognitive Science, submitted for publication.

[6]

C.F. DiSalvo, F. Gemperle, J. Forlizzi, S. Kiesler. “All robots are not created equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads”, in Proc. 4th Conference on Designing interactive systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (ACM), 2002, London, pp. 321–326.

[7]

J. L. Drury, D. Hestand, H. A. Yanco, and J. Scholtz, “Design guidelines for improved human-robot interaction”, in CHI'04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM), Vienna, 2004, pp. 1540–1540.

Digital Library

[8]

T. Nomura, T. Kanda, and T. Suzuki, “Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction” AI & Society, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 138–150, 2006.

Digital Library

[9]

H. Cramer et al., “‘Give me a hug’: the effects of touch and autonomy on people's responses to embodied social agents”, Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, vol. 20, no. 2-3, pp. 437–445, 2009.

Digital Library

[10]

E.R. Smith et al., “Human-robot interaction as intergroup behavior”, Social Cognition, submitted for publication.

[11]

T.F. Pettigrew, and L.R. Tropp, “A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 90, no. 5, p. 751, 2006.

[12]

R.J. Crisp, and R.N. Turner, “Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions?: Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact”, American Psychologist, vol. 64, no. 4, p. 231, 2009.

[13]

A.H. Crusco, and C.G. Wetzel, “The Midas touch the effects of interpersonal touch on restaurant tipping”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 512–517, 1984.

[14]

C.R. Seger et al., “Reach out and reduce prejudice: The impact of interpersonal touch on intergroup liking”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 51–58, 2014.

[15]

T.F. Pettigrew, and L.R. Tropp, “How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators”, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 922–934, 2008.

[16]

T.M. Field, “Massage therapy effects”, American Psychologist, vol. 53, no. 12, p. 1270, 1998.

[17]

B. Ditzen et al., “Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on cortisol and heart rate responses to stress in women”, Psychoneuroendocrinology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 565–574, 2007.

[18]

L. Beckes, and J.A. Coan, “Social baseline theory: The role of social proximity in emotion and economy of action”, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol 5, no 12, pp. 976–988, 2011.

[19]

J.A. Coan, H.S. Schaefer, and R.J. Davidson, “Lending a hand social regulation of the neural response to threat”, Psychological Science, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1032–1039, 2006.

[20]

S. Driskel, “Hands off: Interpersonal touch decreases positivity in interracial interactions”, unpublished.

[21]

T.L. Chen, C. H. A. King, A. L. Thomaz, and C. C. Kemp, “An investigation of responses to robot-initiated touch in a nursing context”, International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 141–161, 2014.

[22]

T.W. Bickmore, R. Fernando, L. Ring, and D. Schuldman, “Empathic touch by relational agents”, IEEE Trans. Affective Computing, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 60–71, 2010.

Digital Library

[23]

J.B. Van Erp, and A. Toet. “How to Touch Humans: Guidelines for Social Agents and Robots That Can Touch”, in IEEE Proc. 5th Humaine AssociationConference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, Geneva, 2013, pp. 780–785.

[24]

S. Yohanan, and K.E. MacLean, “The role of affective touch in human-robot interaction: Human intent and expectations in touching the haptic creature”, International Journal of Social Robotics, vol- 4 no. 2, pp. 163–180, 2012.

[25]

R. Walker, and C. Bartneck, “The pleasure of receiving a head massage from a robot”, in Proc. 22nd IEEE InternationalSymposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Gyeongju, 2013, pp. 807–813.

[26]

M. de Graaf, and S. Ben Allouch. “The relation between people's attitude and anxiety towards robots in human-robot interaction”, Proc. 22nd IEEE InternationalSymposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Gyeongju, 2013, pp. 632–637.

[27]

M. Brambilla, M. Ravenna, and M. Hewstone, “Changing stereotype content through mental imagery: Imagining intergroup contact promotes stereotype change”, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 305–315, 2012.

[28]

R.N. Turner, R.J. Crisp, and E. Lambert, “Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes”, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 427–441, 2007.

[29]

R.N. Turner, and K. West, “Behavioural consequences of imagining intergroup contact with stigmatized outgroups”, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 193–202, 2012.

[30]

D. Kuchenbrandt, F. Eyssel, and S.K. Seidel, “Cooperation makes it happen: Imagined intergroup cooperation enhances the positive effects of imagined contact”, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 635–647, 2013.

[31]

M.N. Kozak, A.A. Marsh, and D.M. Wegner, “What do I think you're doing? Action identification and mind attribution”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 90, no. 4, p. 543, 2006.

[32]

S. Demoulin et al., “Dimensions of “uniquely” and “non-uniquely” human emotions”, Cognition and Emotion, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 71–96, 2004.

[33]

K. R. Koslov, “Pounding hearts and brittle smiles: The effect of resource depletion on outgroup positivity”, Diss. Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2010.

[34]

N. Ezer, “Is a robot an appliance, teammate, or friend? Age-related differences in expectations of and attitudes towards personal home-based robot”, Diss. Georgia Institute of Technology 2008.

[35]

C.A. Cottrell, and S.L. Neuberg, “Different emotional reactions to different groups: a sociofunctional threat-based approach to prejudice”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 88, no. 5, p. 770, 2005.

[36]

F. Eyssel, and D. Kuchenbrandt, “Social categorization of social robots: Anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership”, British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 724–731, 2012.

[37]

N. Epley, A. Waytz, and J.T. Cacioppo, “On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism”, Psychological Review, vol. 114, no. 4, p. 864, 2007.

[38]

S. Paepcke, and L. Takayama. “Judging a bot by its cover: an experiment on expectation setting for personal robots”, in Proc. 5th ACM/IEEE InternationalConference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Osaka, 2010, pp. 45–52.

[39]

P. Winkielman, N. Schwarz, T. Fazendeiro, and R. Reber, “The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment”, in The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion, J. Musch & K. C. Klauer, Eds. Mahaw, New Jesey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 2003, pp. 189–217.

[40]

R.F. Bornstein, “Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research 1968-1987”. Psychological Bulletin, 1989. 106 (2): p. 265.

[41]

R.A. Klein et al., “Investigating variation in replicability”, Social Psychology, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 142–152, 2014.

Cited By

Paterson M(2023)Inviting Robot Touch (By Design)ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/354953312:2(1-17)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3549533
Akay SArslan BBagci SKanero JSakamoto DWeiss AHiatt LShiomi M(2022)"My Robot Friend": Application of Intergroup Contact Theory in Human-Robot InteractionProceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.5555/3523760.3523851(665-668)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3523760.3523851
Savela NOksanen APellert MGarcia D(2021)Emotional reactions to robot colleagues in a role-playing experimentInternational Journal of Information Management: The Journal for Information Professionals10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.10236160:COnline publication date: 1-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102361
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Getting in Touch: How imagined, actual, and physical contact affect evaluations of robots
1. Applied computing

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Emotionally expressive dynamic physical behaviors in robots

For social robots to respond to humans in an appropriate manner, they need to use apt affect displays, revealing underlying emotional intelligence. We present an artificial emotional intelligence system for robots, with both a generative and a ...
Does Emotional State Affect How People Perceive Robots?
HRI '21 Companion: Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

Emotions serve important regulatory roles in social interaction. Although recognition, modeling, and expression of emotion have been extensively researched in human-robot interaction and related fields, the role of human emotion in perceptions of and ...
Quantifying Negative Affect
PhyCS 2015: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Physiological Computing Systems

Humans sometimes experience negative emotions caused by electronic devices that impede their task(s). User experience researchers have examined technology-caused negative affect by collecting task performance metrics, user feedback, and/or human ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings

2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)

1025 pages

Copyright © 2016.

Publisher

IEEE Press

Publication History

Published: 01 August 2016

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Paterson M(2023)Inviting Robot Touch (By Design)ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/354953312:2(1-17)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3549533
Akay SArslan BBagci SKanero JSakamoto DWeiss AHiatt LShiomi M(2022)"My Robot Friend": Application of Intergroup Contact Theory in Human-Robot InteractionProceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.5555/3523760.3523851(665-668)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3523760.3523851
Savela NOksanen APellert MGarcia D(2021)Emotional reactions to robot colleagues in a role-playing experimentInternational Journal of Information Management: The Journal for Information Professionals10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.10236160:COnline publication date: 1-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102361
Horstmann AGratch JKrämer N(2021)I just wanna blame somebody, not something! Reactions to a computer agent giving negative feedback based on the instructions of a personInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102683154:COnline publication date: 1-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102683
Chue VRios JWohn DForte APrilla MVivacqua AMüller CRobert L(2018)A Hot BotProceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work10.1145/3148330.3154516(136-139)Online publication date: 7-Jan-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3148330.3154516

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents