Robots are increasingly utilized to work with humans in collaborative tasks. While there is a growing body of research investigating individual measures that impact human-robot interaction (HRI), to our knowledge, no measure exists to quantify an individual's perception of robot power. How powerful one perceives robots could be a driving factor in an individual's attitudes toward robots and their trust in HRI. This study aims to develop and validate a scale to quantify peoples' general perception of the power of robots. Preliminary results from exploratory factor analyses with nearly 60% of planned participants revealed three potential factors: companion/task robots, social coworking robots, and domineering robots. Future work will examine whether and how the scale predicts behavior to continue to refine the scale and isolate its measurement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartneckC.CroftE.KulicD. (2008). Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots. Proceedings of the Metrics for Human-Robot Interaction Workshop in affiliation with the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 471, (pp. 37-44). Amsterdam, Netherlands: ACM/IEEE.
2.
BartneckC.NomuraT.KandaT.SuzukiT.KatoK. (2005). A cross-cultural study on attitudes towards robots. Proceedings of the HCI International, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
3.
BoatengG.NeilandsT.FrongilloE.Meglar-QuinonezH.YoungS. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6(149). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
4.
CapekK. (2001). Rossum's Universal Robots (SelverP.Playfair.N., Trans.). Dover Publications. (Original work published 1920)
5.
CarpinellaC.WymanA.PerezM.StroessnerS. (2017). The robotic social attributes scale (RoSAS): Development and validation. Association for Computing Machinery, 254-262.
6.
CattellR. B. (1966) The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
7.
CaveS.CoughlanK.DihalK. (2019) “Scary robots”: Examining public responses to AI. Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, (pp. 331-337). Honolulu, HI, USA.
8.
de VisserE.ParasuramanR. (2011). Adaptive aiding of human-robot teaming: Effects of imperfect automation on performance, trust, and workload. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 5(2), 209-231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343411410160
9.
DufourdDDalgalarrondoA. (2006). Integrating human/robot interaction into robot control architectures for defense applications. National Conference on Control Architecture of Robots. (pp. 6-7) Montpellier, France.
10.
DzindoletMPetersonSPomrankyR.PierceLBeckH. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 697-718.
11.
GombolayM. C.GutierrezR. A.ClarkeS. G.SturlaG. F.ShahJ. A. (2015) Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human-robot teams. Autonomous Robots, 39, 293-312.
12.
GreenS. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 499-510.
13.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK.E.ChenJ. Y.de VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517-527.
14.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, (pp. 1-55).
15.
JuW. (2016). Power in human robot interactions. In What Social Robots Can and Should Do: Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2016, (pp. 13-14). Aarhus, Denmark.
16.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.) Guilford Publications.
17.
KoverolaM.KunnariASundvallJ.LaakasuoM. (2022). General attitudes towards robots scale (GAToRS): A new instrument for social surveys. International Journal of Social Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-008800-3
18.
KragelohC.BharatharajJ.KuttyS. K. S.NirmalaP. R.HuangL. (2019). Questionnaires to measure acceptability of social robots: A critical review. Robotics, 8(4).
19.
NanevaS.GouM. S.WebbT. L.PrescottT. J. (2020) A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12, 1179-1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00659-4
20.
NinomiyaT.AkihitoF.SuzukiD.UmemuroH. (2015). Development of the multi-dimensional robot attitudes scale: Constructs of people's attitudes towards domestic robots. In International Conference on Social Robotics, (pp. 482-491). Paris, France.
21.
NomuraT.KandaT.SuzukiT.KatoK. (2004). Psychology in human-robot communication: An attempt through investigation of negative attitudes and anxiety toward robots. In Proceedings of the RO-MAN 2004: 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, (pp. 35-40). Kurashiki, Japan.
22.
NomuraT.KandaT.SuzukiT. (2006). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes towards robots on human-robot interaction. AI & Society, 20(2), 138-150. https://doi.org/10.1007s00146-005-0012-7
23.
NomuraT.ShintaniT.FujiiK.HokabeK. (2007). Experimental investigation of relationships between anxiety, negative attitudes, and allowable distance of robots. Proceedings of the 2nd IASTED International Conference on Human Computer Interaction IASTED-HCI. (pp. 13-18). Chamonix, France.
24.
NomuraT.SugimotoK.SyrdalD. S.DautenhahnK. (2012). Social acceptance of humanoid robots in Japan: A survey for development of the frankenstein syndrome questionnaire. In 12th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Human Robots (Humanoids 2012), (pp. 242-247). Osaka, Japan.
25.
RoviraE.McLaughlinA. C.NovitzkyM. (Under Review). I didn't like you before, and I like you less now: Individual differences predict behavior in HRI. Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction.
26.
SandersT.OseonK. E.BillingsD. R.ChenJ. Y. C.HancockP. A. (2011). A model of human-robot trust: Theoretical model development. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55(1), (pp. 1432-1436). Los Angeles, CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181311551298
27.
SchaeferK. (2013). The perception and measurement of human-robot trust. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Central Florida]. University of Central Florida Digital Archive.
28.
TaberK. (2018). The use of Cronbach's Alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, (pp. 1273-1296).
29.
WeissA.BernhauptR.TscheligiM.YoshidaE. (2009) Addressing user experience and societal impact in a user study with humanoid robot. In 23rd Convention of the Society for the Study of Articifical Intelligence and Simulation of Behavior, AISB 2009, (pp. 150-157). Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
30.
WhedonJ. (2015). Avengers: Age of Ultron. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.
31.
YamK. C.GohE.FehrR.LeeR.SohH.GrayK. (2022). When your boss is a robot: Workers are more spiteful to robot supervisors that seem more human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102.
