Online settings have become more commonplace for interactions. Currently, a common-place interaction is with a chatbot of some kind when traversing the web, however, chatbots offer a limited amount of communication channels for social interactions. These limitations could possibly be addressed by using social robots as alternatives for interacting. The present study examines the effects of a real visual component in an online viewing task on participants’ perceived beliefs (hedonic and utilitarian) of a virtual agent. Perceptual judgments were collected after actively viewing a task with one of the two agents (chatbot or online social robot). The focus of the study was to determine whether social robots offer an increased hedonic experience compared to chatbots. Additionally, utilitarian factors were explored. Results indicated that the online social robot offered an overall better experience being perceived as more hedonic as well as being more perceived as easier to use and adaptable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (2005). The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. In AlbarracínD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (p. 173–221). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
2.
AndristS.PejsaT.MutluB.GleicherM. (2012, May). Designing effective gaze mechanisms for virtual agents. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 705-714).
3.
BartneckC.KulićD.CroftE.ZoghbiS. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International journal of social robotics, 1(1), 71-81.
4.
BioccaF.HarmsC.BurgoonJ. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments,12(5), 456–480.
5.
BreazealC. (2003). Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. International journal of human-computer studies, 59(1-2), 119-155.
6.
BreazealC.KiddC. D.ThomazA. L.HoffmanG.BerlinM. (2005, August). Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork. In 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (pp. 708-713). IEEE.
7.
de GraafM. M. A.AllouchB. S. (2013). Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems. Robotics and Autonomous Systems.
8.
de GraafM. M. A.AllouchB. S.Van DijkJ. A. G. M. (2019). Why Would I Use This in My Home? A Model of Domestic Social Robot Acceptance. Human–computer Interaction, 34(2), 115–173.
9.
DengE.MutluB.MataricM. J. (2019). Embodiment in Socially Interactive Robots. Foundations and Trends® in Robotics, 7(4), 251-356.
10.
de RuyterB.SainiP.MarkopoulosP.Van BreemenA. (2005). Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interacting with computers, 17(5), 522-541.
11.
FongT.NourbakhshI.DautenhahnK. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 143–166. doi:10.1016/S09218890(02)00372-X
12.
HeerinkM.KröseB.EversV.WielingaB. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361–375.
13.
HoffmannL.BockN.RosenthalvdPüttenA. M. (2018, February). The peculiarities of robot embodiment (emcorp-scale) development, validation and initial test of the embodiment and corporeality of artificial agents scale. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 370-378).
14.
KiddC. D.BreazealC. (2004, September). Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566) (Vol. 4, pp. 3559-3564). IEEE.
15.
McCroskeyJ. C.McCainT. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41(3), 261–266.
16.
MeadR.AtrashA.MatarićM. J. (2013). Automated proxemic feature extraction and behavior recognition: Applications in human-robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(3), 367-378.
17.
MeadR.MatarićM. J. (2016). Perceptual models of human-robot proxemics. In Experimental robotics (pp. 261-276). Springer, Cham.
18.
MutluB.KandaT.ForlizziJ.HodginsJ.IshiguroH. (2012). Conversational gaze mechanisms for humanlike robots. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 1(2), 1-33.
19.
NormanD. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love or hate everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
20.
ReillyW. S. (1996). Believable Social and Emotional Agents. Carnegie-Mellon Univ Pittsburgh pa Dept of Computer Science.
21.
RubinR. B.MartinM. M. (1994). Development of a measure of interpersonal communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 11(1), 33–44.
22.
RyanR.M.DeciE.L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology25, 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
23.
SidnerC. L.LeeC.KiddC. D.LeshN.RichC. (2005). Explorations in engagement for humans and robots. Artificial Intelligence, 166(1-2), 140-164.
24.
TakayamaL.PantofaruC. (2009, October). Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. In 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 5495-5502). IEEE.
25.
VallerandR. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in experimental social psychology, 29, 271-360.
26.
Ventre-DomineyJ.GibertG.Bosse-PlatiereM.FarnèA.DomineyP. F.PavaniF. (2019). Embodiment into a robot increases its acceptability. Scientific reports, 9(1), 1-10.
27.
WangB.RauP. L. P. (2019). Influence of embodiment and substrate of social robots on users’ decision-making and attitude. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(3), 411-421.
