Robots are increasingly being introduced into task environments that require the ability to exhibit appropriate social functionality. The present study is an examination of how social cues conveyed by a robot, during a brief interaction, affect the perception of the robot as a socially present agent. Participants were exposed to one of three gaze conditions and two proxemic behavioral programs during a number of experimental trials involving path-crossing in a hallway setting. Results indicated that participants perceived the robot as more socially present when it exhibited a passive proxemic behavior and more socially present over time; though, findings varied at the sub-scale level. Design recommendations are presented for roboticists.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ApperlyI. A.ButterfillS. A. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states?Psychological Review, 116(4), 953-970.
2.
Bockelman MorrowP.FioreS. M. (2012). Supporting Human-Robot Teams in Social Dynamicism: An overview of the Metaphoric Inference Framework. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1718-1722).
3.
BohlV.van den BosW. (2012). Toward an integrative account of social cognition: Marrying theory of mind and interactionism to study the interplay of type 1 and type 2 processes. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(274), 1-15.
4.
BreazealC.KiddC. D.ThomazA. L.HoffmanG.BerlinM. (2005). Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork. Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems: IROS 2005, Cambridge, MA, USA, 708-713.
5.
BurgoonJ. K. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In KnappM. L.MillerG. R. (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 229–285). Beverly Hills: Sage.
6.
FischerK. (2011). Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction: HRI 2011, Lausanne, Switzerland, 53-60.
7.
GoodrichM. A.SchultzA. C. (2007). Human-robot interaction: A survey. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 1(3), 203-275.
8.
HarmsC.BioccaF. (2004). Internal consistency and reliability of the networked mind social presence measure. In AlacanizM.ReyB. (Eds.), Seventh Annual Workshop: Presence 2004. Valencia: Univsersidad Politecnica de Valencia.
9.
KahnP. H.KandaT.IshiguroH.GillB. T.RuckertJ. H.ShenS.SeversonR. L. (2012). Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes? In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 33-40). ACM.
10.
MummJ.MutluB. (2011). Human-robot proxemics: Physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction: HRI 2011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
11.
MutluB.YamaokaF.KandaT.IshiguroH.HagitaN. (2009). Nonverbal leakage in robots: Communication of intentions through seemingly unintentional behavior. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction: HRI 2009.
12.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103.
13.
PhillipsE.OsoskyS.GroveJ.JentschF. (2011). From tools to teammates: Toward the development of appropriate mental models for intelligent robots. Proceedings of 55th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1481–1485).
14.
ReevesB.NassC. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Chicago, IL, US: Center for the Study of Language and Information; New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
15.
SaulnierP.SharlinE.GreenbergS. (2011, July). Exploring minimal nonverbal interruption in HRI. In RO-MAN, 2011IEEE (pp. 79-86). IEEE.
16.
StreaterJ. P.Bockelman MorrowP.FioreS. M. (2012). Making things that understand people: The beginnings of an interdisciplinary approach for engineering computational social intelligence. Presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the HFES (October 22-26), Boston, MA.
17.
SyrdalD. S.DautenhahnK.KoayK. L.WaltersM. L.OteroN. R. (2010, September). Exploring human mental models of robots through explicitation interviews. In RO-MAN, 2010IEEE (pp. 638-645). IEEE.
18.
TakayamaL. (2012). Perspectives on agency interacting with and through personal robots. Human-Computer Interaction: The Agency Perspective, 195-214.
19.
TakayamaL.DooleyD.JuW. (2011). Expressing thought: Improving robot readability with animation principles. Proceedings of Human-Robot Interaction Conference: HRI 2011, Switzerland.
20.
TakayamaL.PantofaruC. (2009). Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of Intelligent Robotic Systems: IROS 2009, St. Louis, MO, USA, 5495-5502.
21.
VinciarelliA.PanticN.HeylenD.PelachaudC.PoggiI.D’ErricoF.SchröderM. (2012). Bridging the gap between social animal and unsocial machine: A survey of social signal processing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(1), 69-87.
22.
WaltersM. L.DautenhanK.KoayK. L.KaouriC.BoekhorstR. T.NehanivC.WerryI.LeeD. (2005). Close encounters: Spatial distances between people and a robot of mechanistic appearance. Proceedings of the 5th IEEE/RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Tsukuba, Japan, 450-455.
