Robotic teammates are becoming prevalent in increasingly complex and dynamic operational and social settings. For this reason, the perception of robots operating in such environments has transitioned from the perception of robots as tools, extending human capabilities, to the perception of robots as teammates, collaborating with humans and displaying complex social cognitive processes. The goal of this paper is to introduce a discussion on an integrated set of robotic design elements, as well as provide support for the idea that human-robot interaction requires a clearer understanding of social cognitive constructs to optimize human-robot collaboration. We develop a set of research questions addressing these constructs with the goal of improving the engineering of artificial cognitive systems reliant on natural human-robot interaction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartneckC.KandaT.MubinO.Al MahmudA. (2009). Does the design of a robot influence its animacy and perceived intelligence?International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(2), 195-204.
2.
BernierE. P.ScassellatiB. (2010). The similarity-attraction effect in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 9th International Conference on Development and Learning (pp. 286-290).
3.
BestA.KapaloK.WartaS. F.FioreS. M. (2016). Clustering social cues to determine social signals: Developing learning algorithms using the “n-most likely states” approach. Proceedings of the SPIE Defense + Security 2016, Unmanned Systems Technology XVIII, 98370L-1–98370L-15.
4.
BreazealC.GrayJ.BerinM. (2011). Mindreading as a foundational skill for socially intelligent robots. In Robotics Research (pp. 383-394). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
5.
BrewerM. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In SrullT. K.WyerR. J. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition, volume 1: A dual process model of impression formation (pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
6.
BroadbentE.KumarV.LiX.SollersJ.StaffordR. Q.MacDonaldB. A.WegnerD. M. (2013). Robots with display screens: A robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PloS One, 8(8), e72589.
7.
ByrneD. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
8.
DautenhahnK.BillardA. (1999). Studying robot social cognition within a developmental psychology framework. In Third European Workshop on Advanced Mobile Robots, Eurobot’99 (pp. 187-194). IEEE.
9.
DomineyP. F.WarnekenF. (2011). The basis of shared intentions in human and robot cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 29(3), 260-274.
10.
FioreS. M.EliasJ.GallagherS.JentschF. (2008). Cognition and coordination: Applying cognitive science to understand macrocognition in human-agent teams. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Symposium on Human Interaction with Complex Systems.
11.
FioreS. M.JentschF.RehfeldS.FinkelsteinN. (2005). Situation awareness and human-agent teams: Integrating socio-cognitive theories with the practice of human agent-teamwork. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
12.
FioreS. M.WiltshireT. J.LobatoE. J. C.JentschF. G.HuangW. H.AxelrodB. (2013). Towards understanding social cues and signals in human-robot interaction: Effects of robot gaze and proxemics behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 859.
13.
HaraF.KobayashiH. (1995). Use of face robot for human-computer communication. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Intelligent Systems for the 21st Century (pp. 1515-1520).
14.
HarmsC.BioccaF. (2004). Internal consistency and reliability of the networked minds measure of social presence. In AlcanizM.ReyB. (Eds.), Seventh Annual International Workshop: Presence 2004. Valencia: Universidad Politecnica de Valencia
15.
IsbisterK.NassC. (2000). Consistency of personality in interactive characters: Verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 251-267.
16.
KahnP. H.KandaT.IshiguroH.FreierN. G.SeversonR. L.GillB. T.ShenS. (2012). “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 303-314.
17.
KaklauskasA. (2015). Intelligent Decision Support Systems. Biometric and Intelligent Decision Making Support (pp. 31-85). Springer Publishing.
18.
LearyT. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. NY: Ronald Press.
19.
LebiereC.JentschF.OsoskyS. (2013). Cognitive models of decision making processes for human-robot interaction. In Virtual Augmented and Mixed Reality. Designing and Developing Augmented and Virtual Environments (pp. 285-294). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
20.
LeeS. L.KieslerS.LauI. Y. M.ChiuC. Y. (2005). Human mental models of humanoid robots. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 2767-2772). IEEE.
21.
LeeK. M.PengW.JinS. A.YanC. (2006). Can robots manifest personality?: An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human-robot interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 754-772.
22.
LobatoE. J. C.WartaS. F.WiltshireT. J.FioreS. M. (2015). Varying social cue constellations results in different attributed social signals in a simulated surveillance task. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 61-66). AAAI.
23.
LobatoE. J. C.WiltshireT. J.HudakS.FioreS. M. (2014). No time, no problem: Mental state attributions made quickly or after reflection do not differ. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58, 1341-1345.
24.
MarkmanA. B.GentnerD. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 24(2), 235-249.
25.
MatsunoF.SatoN.KonK.IgarashiH.KimuraT.MurphyR. (2014). Utilization of robot systems in disaster sites of the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake. In Field and Service Robotics (pp. 1-17). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
26.
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S.KirchnerJ. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889-922.
27.
MurphyR. R. (2013). A roadmap for the adoption of unmanned systems into public safety. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security (pp. 350-353). IEEE.
28.
MurphyR. R. (2014). Disaster robotics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
NassC.LeeK. M. (2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. JEP: Applied, 7(3), 171-181.
30.
NassC.MoonY.FoggB. J.ReevesB.DryerD. C. (1995). Can computer personalities be human personalities?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 223-239.
31.
NassC.MoonY.MorkesJ.KimE. Y.FoggB. (1997). Computers are social actors: A review of current research. In FriedmanB. (Ed.), Human values and the design of computer technology (pp. 137-162). Stanford, CA: CSLI Press.
32.
NormanD. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York, NY: Basic books.
33.
PalmerS.RockI. (1994). Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(1), 29-55.
34.
PhillipsE.OsoskyS.GroveJ.JentschF. (2011). From tools to teammates: Toward the development of appropriate mental models for intelligent robots. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55, 1491-1495.
35.
SteuerJ. (1995). Vividness and source of evaluation as determinants of social responses toward mediated representation of agency (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, California.
36.
SullivanH. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. NY: Norton.
37.
ThomazA. L.BerlinM.BreazealC. (2005). An embodied computational model of social referencing. In International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 591-598). IEEE.
38.
TverskyA. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327-352.
39.
VinciarelliA.PanticM.BourlardH. (2009). Social signal processing: Survey of an emerging domain. Image and Vision Computing, 27(12), 1743-1759.
40.
VinciarelliA.PanticM.HeylenD.PelachaudC.PoggiI.D’ErricoF.SchroderM. (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.
41.
WagemansJ.ElderJ. H.KubovyM.PalmerS. E.PetersonM. A.SinghM.von der HeydtR. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 138(6), 1172-1217.
42.
WartaS. F. (2015a). I don’t always have positive attitudes, but when I do it is usually about a robot: Development of the robot perception scale. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 127-130). AAAI.
43.
WartaS. F. (2015b). If a robot did “the robot,” would it still be called “the robot” or just dancing? Perceptual and social factors in human-robot interactions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59, 796-800.
44.
WertheimerM. (1950). Gestalt theory. New York, NY: Humanities Press.
45.
WiltshireT. J.BarberD.FioreS. M. (2013). Towards modeling social-cognitive mechanisms in robots to facilitate human-robot teaming. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57, 1278-1282.
46.
WiltshireT. J.LobatoE. J.GarciaD. R.FioreS. M.JentschF. G.HuangW. H.AxelrodB. (2015). Effects of Robotic Social Cues on Interpersonal Attributions and Assessments of Robot Interaction Behaviors. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59, 801-805.
47.
ZhaoL.BadlerN. (2005). Acquiring & validating motion qualities from live limb gestures. Graphical Models. 67(1), 1-16.
