When a Robot Violates Expectations: The Influence of Reward Valence and Expectancy Violation on People's Evaluation of a Social Robot

In an experimental lab study with a 2x2 between-subjects-design (N = 162), the aim was to examine how a negative expectancy violation caused by a social robot and its reward valence, which represents how desirable it is to interact with this robot, affect the evaluation of the robot and the interaction with it. The negative expectancy violation led to less positive evaluations of the interaction with the robot as well as its sociability and competence. The robot with a high reward valence evoked a more positive evaluation of the interaction with it as well as its sociability. Furthermore, when the robot had a low reward valence, an expectancy violation led participants to increasingly rate the robot's behavior as deviating from what they expected.

[1]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  The Hollywood Robot Syndrome media effects on older adults' attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions , 2016, 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[2]  Roland Siegwart,et al.  What do people expect from robots? , 2008, 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[3]  T. Komatsu,et al.  Adaptation gap hypothesis : How differences between users ’ expected and perceived agent functions affect their subjective impression , 2010 .

[4]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades , 1981 .

[5]  Manfred Tscheligi,et al.  Looking Forward to a “Robotic Society”? , 2011, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[6]  J. Burgoon.  Interpersonal Expectations, Expectancy Violations, and Emotional Communication , 1993 .

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

[8]  Arne Jönsson,et al.  Wizard of Oz studies: why and how , 1993, IUI '93.

[9]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  The measurement of interpersonal attraction , 1974 .

[10]  J. Walther,et al.  Interpretations, Evaluations, and Consequences of Interpersonal Touch , 1992 .

[11]  Ross A. Knepper,et al.  Human expectations of social robots , 2016, 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[12]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Nonverbal Expectancies and the Evaluative Consequences of Violations , 1990 .

[13]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[14]  Vanessa Evers,et al.  Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[15]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  Great Expectations? Relation of Previous Experiences With Social Robots in Real Life or in the Media and Expectancies Based on Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment , 2019, Front. Psychol..

[16]  Kai Oliver Arras,et al.  Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000 people survey , 2005 .

[17]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors , 1988 .

[18]  Arne Jönsson,et al.  Wizard of Oz studies -- why and how , 1993, Knowl. Based Syst..

[19]  Arthur D. Fisk,et al.  Attitudinal and Intentional Acceptance of Domestic Robots by Younger and Older Adults , 2009, HCI.