Follow Me: Anthropomorphic Appearance and Communication Impact Social Perception and Joint Navigation Behavior
Authors: 
Pia Dautzenberg, Stefan Ladwig, Astrid Marieke Rosenthal-von der PüttenAuthors Info & Claims
Pages 175 - 183
Abstract
This study addresses how anthropomorphic features shape users' social perception and trust towards service robots and whether anthropomorphic characteristics influence the way people jointly navigate with them facing several obstacles in a course. Therefore, an experimental study was conducted where two communication and appearance designs (humanlike vs. machinelike) were examined for a service robot that provides transportation of goods by semi-automated following. The results of the study indicate that the humanlike robot design is rated more competent, warmer, less discomforting, and is generally preferred. Furthermore, participants jointly navigating with the humanlike designed robot walked around obstacles significantly more often indicating a more considerate navigation behavior and better remembering of system limits; both probably evoked by the humanlike design characteristics. In sum, the results of this study provide intriguing implications on how to target HRI for the service robot examined to enhance pleasant and error-free interaction.
References
[1]
Christoph Bartneck, Elizabeth Croft, and Susana Zoghbi. 2009. Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 1, 1 (2009), 71--81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001--3
[2]
J. Benitez, A. B.Wyman, C. M. Carpinella, and S. J. Stroessner. 2017. The authority of appearance: How robot features influence trait inferences and evaluative responses. In Human-robot collaboration and human assistance for an improved quality of life. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 397--404. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN. 2017.8172333
[3]
Alexander Benlian, Johannes Klumpe, and Oliver Hinz. 2020. Mitigating the intrusive effects of smart home assistants by using anthropomorphic design features: A multimethod investigation. Information Systems Journal 30, 6 (2020), 1010--1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12243
[4]
Markus Blut, Cheng Wang, Nancy V. Wünderlich, and Christian Brock. 2021. Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: a meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 49, 4 (2021), 632--658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y
[5]
Colleen M. Carpinella, Alisa B.Wyman, Michael A. Perez, and Steven J. Stroessner. 2017. The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS). In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020208
[6]
Jiayuan Dong, Emily Lawson, Jack Olsen, and Myounghoon Jeon. 2020. Female Voice Agents in Fully Autonomous Vehicles Are Not Only More Likeable and Comfortable, But Also More Competent. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 64, 1 (2020), 1033--1037. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1071181320641248
[7]
Xiao Dou, Chih-Fu Wu, Kai-Chieh Lin, Senzhong Gan, and Tzu-Min Tseng. 2021. Effects of Different Types of Social Robot Voices on Affective Evaluations in Different Application Fields. International Journal of Social Robotics 13, 4 (2021), 615--628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00654--9
[8]
Alice H. Eagly and Antonio Mladinic. 1994. Are People Prejudiced Against Women? Some Answers From Research on Attitudes, Gender Stereotypes, and Judgments of Competence. European Review of Social Psychology 5, 1 (1994), 1--35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000002
[9]
Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological review 114, 4 (2007), 864--886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033--295X.114.4.864
[10]
Friederike Eyssel and Frank Hegel. 2012. (S)he's Got the Look: Gender Stereotyping of Robots 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42, 9 (2012), 2213--2230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559--1816.2012.00937.x
[11]
Friederike Eyssel, Dieta Kuchenbrandt, FRANK HEGEL, and Laura de Ruiter. 2012. Activating elicited agent knowledge: How robot and user features shape the perception of social robots. In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE. https://doi. org/10.1109/roman.2012.6343858
[12]
Julia Fink. 2012. Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interaction. In Social Robotics: 4th International Conference, ICSR 2012, Chengdu, China, October 29--31, 2012. Proceedings 4. Springer, 199--208.
[13]
Juan Angel Gonzalez-Aguirre, Ricardo Osorio-Oliveros, Karen L. Rodríguez- Hernández, Javier Lizárraga-Iturralde, Rubén Morales Menendez, Ricardo A. Ramírez-Mendoza, Mauricio Adolfo Ramírez-Moreno, and Jorge de Jesús Lozoya- Santos. 2021. Service Robots: Trends and Technology. Applied Sciences 11, 22 (2021), 10702. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112210702
[14]
Arthur C. Graesser, Cheryl Bowers, Brent Olde, and Victoria Pomeroy. 1999. Who said what? Source memory for narrator and character agents in literary short stories. Journal of Educational Psychology 91, 2 (1999), 284--300. https: //doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.284
[15]
Gary J. Greguras and Chet Robie. 1998. A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology 83, 6 (1998), 960--968. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021--9010.83.6.960
[16]
Kevin Anthony Hoff and Masooda Bashir. 2015. Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human factors 57, 3 (2015), 407--434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
[17]
Laura Hoffmann, Nikolai Bock, and Rosenthal v.d. Pütten, Astrid M. 2018. The Peculiarities of Robot Embodiment (EmCorp-Scale). In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171242
[18]
Bing Cai Kok and Harold Soh. 2020. Trust in Robots: Challenges and Opportunities. Current robotics reports 1, 4 (2020), 297--309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154- 020-00029-y
[19]
Richard E. Mayer. 2012. Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164603
[20]
Richard E. Mayer, Kristina Sobko, and Patricia D. Mautone. 2003. Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Human factors 95, 2 (2003), 419--425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.419
[21]
MMag. Matthias Beggiato. 2015. Changes in motivational and higher level cognitive processes when interacting with in-vehicle automation. https://monarch.qucosa. de/id/qucosa:20246
[22]
Bonnie M Muir and Neville Moray. 1996. Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 39, 3 (1996), 429--460.
[23]
Jonathan Mumm and Bilge Mutlu. 2011. Human-robot proxemics. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction (ACM Conferences), Aude Billard (Ed.). ACM, NewYork, NY, 331--338. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656. 1957786
[24]
Manisha Natarajan and Matthew Gombolay. 2020. Effects of Anthropomorphism and Accountability on Trust in Human Robot Interaction. In HRI '20, Tony Belpaeme, James Young, Hatice Gunes, and Laurel Riek (Eds.). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 33--42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374839
[25]
J. C. Nunnally. 1978. Psychometric Theory: 2d Ed. McGraw-Hill.
[26]
Gloria Pöhler, Tobias Heine, and Barbara Deml. 2016. Itemanalyse und Faktorstruktur eines Fragebogens zur Messung von Vertrauen im Umgang mit automatischen Systemen. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft 70, 3 (2016), 151--160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41449-016-0024--9
[27]
E. Roesler, D. Manzey, and L. Onnasch. 2021. A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction. Science robotics 6, 58 (2021), eabj5425. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abj5425
[28]
Felix Wilhelm Siebert, Jacobe Klein, Matthias Rötting, and Eileen Roesler. 2020. The influence of distance and lateral offset of follow me robots on user perception. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 7 (2020), 74.
[29]
Felix Wilhelm Siebert, Jacobe Klein, Matthias Rötting, and Eileen Roesler. 2020. The Influence of Distance and Lateral Offset of Follow Me Robots on User Perception. Frontiers in robotics and AI 7 (2020), 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt. 2020.00074
[30]
Steven J. Stroessner. 2020. On the social perception of robots: measurement, moderation, and implications. In Living with robots, Ewart J. de Visser, Ericka Rovira, and Richard Pak (Eds.). Academic Press, London and San Diego and Cambridge and Oxford, 21--47. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0--12--815367--3. 00002--5
[31]
Steven J. Stroessner and Jonathan Benitez. 2019. The Social Perception of Humanoid and Non-Humanoid Robots: Effects of Gendered and Machinelike Features. International Journal of Social Robotics 11, 2 (2019), 305--315. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0502--7
[32]
Yi Sun and Rui Wang. 2022. The Research Framework and Evolution of Service Robots. Journal of Computer Information Systems 62, 3 (2022), 598--608. https: //doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2020.1870904
[33]
Leila Takayama and Caroline Pantofaru. 2009. Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. In 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 5495--5502.
[34]
SEbastian Thrun. 2004. Toward a Framework for Human-Robot Interaction. Human--Computer Interaction 19, 1 (2004), 9--24.
[35]
Michael L Walters, Kerstin Dautenhahn, René Te Boekhorst, Kheng Lee Koay, Christina Kaouri, SarahWoods, Chrystopher Nehaniv, David Lee, and IainWerry. 2005. The influence of subjects' personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment. In ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005. IEEE, 347--352.
[36]
M. L. Walters, D. S. Syrdal, K. L. Koay, K. Dautenhahn, and R. te Boekhorst. 2008. Human approach distances to a mechanical-looking robot with different robot voice styles. In RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman. 2008.4600750
[37]
Teresa T. Zielinska. 2019. History of Service Robots and New Trends. In Novel design and applications of robotics technologies, Dan Zhang and Bin Wei (Eds.). Engineering Science Reference an imprint of IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 158--187. https://doi.org/10.4018/978--1--5225--5276--5.ch006
Index Terms
- Follow Me: Anthropomorphic Appearance and Communication Impact Social Perception and Joint Navigation Behavior
Recommendations
Impression on Human-Robot Communication Affected by Inconsistency in Expected Robot Perception
HAI '16: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Human Agent InteractionTo develop long-term human-robot communication (HRC), robots' behavior must be properly perceived and interpreted by users. However, evaluations of processes involving a robot and a human are not conducted in natural situations in which humans can ...
The Trusted Listener: The Influence of Anthropomorphic Eye Design of Social Robots on User's Perception of Trustworthiness
CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsNowadays, social robots have become human's important companions. The anthropomorphic features of robots, which are important in building natural user experience and trustable human-robot partnership, have attracted increasing attention. Among these ...
How Language of Interaction Affects the User Perception of a Robot
Social RoboticsAbstractSpoken language is the most natural way for a human to communicate with a robot. It may seem intuitive that a robot should communicate with users in their native language. However, it is not clear if a user’s perception of a robot is affected by ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
March 2024
982 pages
ISBN:9798400703225
DOI:10.1145/3610977
- General Chairs:
- Dan Grollman,
- Elizabeth Broadbent,
- Program Chairs:
- Wendy Ju,
- Harold Soh,
- Tom Williams
Copyright © 2024 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 11 March 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Funding Sources
- German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
Conference
HRI '24: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
March 11 - 15, 2024
CO, Boulder, USA
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 174Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)174
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
Reflects downloads up to 13 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in