Playing with the Opposite of Uncanny: Empathic Responses to Learning with a Companion-Technology Robot Dog vs. Real Dog

Social robots are becoming increasingly common in the contexts of education and healthcare. This paper reports on the findings of the first stage of an exploratory study conducted with (n=16) Finnish preschoolers aged 5-7 years. The multidisciplinary study intertwining the areas of early education pedagogics, smart toys and interactive technologies, employed both a commercial robot dog and a real dog to study the potential of these artificial and living entities to support and facilitate social-emotional learning (SEL) through a guided playful learning approach. We performed a research intervention including facilitation, observation and video- recordings of three play sessions organized in March-May 2020. The preliminary findings indicate how guided playing with the robot dog supported SEL through conversation about human relationships, while interaction with the real dog facilitated empathic responses through spontaneous reactions on the animal's behavior. The contribution of our research is an understanding of that a robotic dog more than a living dog may assist in simulating human interaction more than human- animal interaction and is in this way suitable to support playful learning of social-emotional competencies.

[1]  Takanori Shibata,et al.  Physical and affective interaction between human and mental commit robot , 2001, Proceedings 2001 ICRA. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.01CH37164).

[2]  Vladimir Estivill-Castro,et al.  Dogs or Robots - Why do Children See Them as Robotic Pets Rather Than Canine Machines? , 2004, AUIC.

[3]  K. Kotrschal,et al.  The Effect of a Real Dog, Toy Dog and Friendly Person on Insecurely Attached Children During a Stressful Task: An Exploratory Study , 2011 .

[4]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Enabling effective human-robot interaction using perspective-taking in robots , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[5]  Aude Billard,et al.  Robota: Clever toy and educational tool , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[6]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms , 1997, CHI.

[7]  K. Heljakka,et al.  Persuasive Toy Friends and Preschoolers: Playtesting IoToys , 2019, The Internet of Toys.

[8]  L. A. Kurdek,et al.  Pet dogs as attachment figures , 2008 .

[9]  Sven Wachsmuth,et al.  Classes of Applications for Social Robots: A User Study , 2007, RO-MAN 2007 - The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[10]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[11]  S. Steidl,et al.  The Prosody of Pet Robot Directed Speech: Evidence from Children. , 2006 .

[12]  L. A. Kurdek,et al.  Young Adults' Attachment to Pet Dogs: Findings from Open-Ended Methods , 2009 .

[13]  Herbert J. Walberg,et al.  The Scientific Base Linking Social and Emotional Learning to School Success , 2007 .

[14]  Christian Martyn Jones,et al.  Affective Human-Robotic Interaction , 2008, Affect and Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction.

[15]  G. Duveen,et al.  Further development and validation of the prosocial behaviour questionnaire for use by teachers. , 1981, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[16]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children , 2004, CHI EA '04.

[17]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler? , 2005, 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[18]  P. Ihamäki,et al.  Robot dogs, interaction and ludic literacy: Exploring smart toy engagements in transgenerational play , 2019, Revista Lusófona de Educação.

[19]  Brian T. Gill,et al.  Children's Behavior toward and Understanding of Robotic and Living Dogs , 2009 .

[20]  Lizzy Bleumers,et al.  Sensitivity to parental play beliefs and mediation in young children's hybrid play activities , 2015, IDC.

[21]  Ibrahim A. Hameed,et al.  User Acceptance of Social Robots , 2016, ACHI 2016.

[22]  Takanori Shibata Research on Interaction between Human and Seal Robot, PARO , 2011 .

[23]  Vicente Nacher,et al.  Game Technologies for Kindergarten Instruction: Experiences and Future Challenges , 2015, CoSECivi.

[24]  P. H. Kahn,et al.  Robotic Pets in Human Lives: Implications for the Human–Animal Bond and for Human Relationships with Personified Technologies , 2009 .

[25]  Herbert J. Walberg,et al.  Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? , 2004 .

[26]  Russell Beale,et al.  Affect and Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction, From Theory to Applications , 2008, Affect and Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction.

[27]  Wendy A. Rogers,et al.  Understanding Robot Acceptance , 2011 .

[28]  Britta Wrede,et al.  Effects of visual appearance on the attribution of applications in social robotics , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[29]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[30]  Lee Humphreys,et al.  Digital Media: Transformations in Human Communication , 2006 .

[31]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Hardware companions?: what online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human-robotic relationship , 2003, CHI '03.