Warmth and Competence to Predict Human Preference of Robot Behavior in Physical Human-Robot Interaction

A solid methodology to understand human perception and preferences in human-robot interaction (HRI) is crucial in designing real-world HRI. Social cognition posits that the dimensions Warmth and Competence are central and universal dimensions characterizing other humans [1]. The Robotic Social Attribute Scale (RoSAS) proposes items for those dimensions suitable for HRI and validated them in a visual observation study. In this paper we complement the validation by showing the usability of these dimensions in a behavior based, physical HRI study with a fully autonomous robot. We compare the findings with the popular Godspeed dimensions Animacy, Anthropomorphism, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence and Perceived Safety. We found that Warmth and Competence, among all RoSAS and Godspeed dimensions, are the most important predictors for human preferences between different robot behaviors. This predictive power holds even when there is no clear consensus preference or significant factor difference between conditions.

[1]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  I Could Be You: the Phenomenological Dimension of Social Understanding , 1997, Cybern. Syst..

[2]  C. Judd,et al.  Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  Karl F. MacDorman,et al.  Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: Developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[4]  Jenay M. Beer,et al.  Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction , 2014, Journal of human-robot interaction.

[5]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  Meta analysis of the usage of the Godspeed Questionnaire Series , 2015, 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[6]  Amy J. C. Cuddy,et al.  Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[7]  A. Goldman,et al.  Is social cognition embodied? , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[8]  Dana Kulic,et al.  Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[9]  Christoph Salge,et al.  Intrinsically Motivated Autonomy in Human-Robot Interaction: Human Perception of Predictive Information in Robots , 2019, TAROS.

[10]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  Common metrics for human-robot interaction , 2006, HRI '06.

[11]  Ralf Der,et al.  The Playful Machine - Theoretical Foundation and Practical Realization of Self-Organizing Robots , 2012, Cognitive Systems Monographs.

[12]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Utilizing Bluetooth Low Energy to recognize proximity, touch and humans , 2016, 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[13]  Christoph Salge,et al.  Human Perception of Intrinsically Motivated Autonomy in Human-Robot Interaction , 2020, Adaptive Behavior.

[14]  Ralf Der,et al.  Information Driven Self-Organization of Complex Robotic Behaviors , 2013, PloS one.

[15]  S. J. Stroessner.  On the social perception of robots: measurement, moderation, and implications , 2020 .

[16]  Amy J. C. Cuddy,et al.  The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. , 2007, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  Pierre-Yves Oudeyer,et al.  What is Intrinsic Motivation? A Typology of Computational Approaches , 2007, Frontiers Neurorobotics.

[18]  Steven J. Stroessner,et al.  The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS): Development and Validation , 2017, 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI.