The Familiar as a key-concept in regulating the social and affective dimensions of HRI

Familiar to everyone, expressions such as “familiar, to familiarize, familiarity” are commonly used in reviews on HRI. Nevertheless, “the familiar” is a notion that lacks a precise definition and only rare studies tackle it directly. This paper is a preliminary study on human experience of the familiar when interacting with a robot. Which signals and elements trigger it? What are the mental and emotional states it associates with? How dependent is it on anthropomorphism and social acceptance? Can the familiar really be considered as a key-concept to study Human-Robot interaction and better understand what makes it a motivating, satisfying and socially adapted one? This research question was investigated in an experiment involving three protagonists: one robot, NAO, and two participants. The experiment was designed in a way allowing a real socially-engaging situation to occur. It investigates participants' response to an unannounced interaction with a robot consisting of two main actions: performing social greetings and handing an envelope containing the questionnaire that participants agreed to answer. The robot's behavior vary from one participant to another.

[1]  L. Cañamero.  Playing the Emotion Game with Feelix , 2002 .

[2]  Claudia Wagner,et al.  Anthropomorphic inferences from emotional nonverbal cues: A case study , 2010, 19th International Symposium in Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[3]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[4]  Yutaka Nakamura,et al.  Psychological effects on interpersonal communication by bystander android using motions based on human-like needs , 2009, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[5]  Andrew Olney,et al.  Upending the Uncanny Valley , 2005, AAAI.

[6]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  Utilitarian vs. hedonic robots: Role of parasocial tendency and anthropomorphism in shaping user attitudes , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[7]  Brett Browning,et al.  Interactional disparities in English and arabic native speakers with a bi-lingual robot receptionist , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[8]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Whose job is it anyway? a study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task , 2004 .

[9]  Kerstin Fischer,et al.  Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[10]  H. Luczak,et al.  Let's talk: anthropomorphization as means to cope with stress of interacting with technical devices , 2003, Ergonomics.

[11]  L. Cañamero.  Playing the emotion game with Feelix : what can a LEGO robot tell us about emotion? , 2002 .

[12]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. , 2007, Psychological review.

[13]  D. Hebb.  Textbook of psychology , 1958 .

[14]  Eunil Park,et al.  The effect of robot's behavior vs. appearance on communication with humans , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[15]  Friederike Eyssel,et al.  Effects of anticipated human-robot interaction and predictability of robot behavior on perceptions of anthropomorphism , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[16]  K. Dautenhahn,et al.  Designing Empathic Agents : Adults vs . Kids , 2004 .

[17]  Joy Bill,et al.  Why the future doesn’t need us , 2003 .

[18]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The advisor robot: tracing people's mental model from a robot's physical attributes , 2006, HRI '06.

[19]  W. Kessen.  A Textbook of Psychology , 1958, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[20]  Richard L. Miller,et al.  Mere Exposure, Psychological Reactance and Attitude Change , 1976 .

[21]  I. René J. A. te Boekhorst,et al.  Human approach distances to a mechanical-looking robot with different robot voice styles , 2008, RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[22]  H. Ishiguro,et al.  The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research , 2006 .

[23]  Takayuki Cowley,et al.  Friendly Machines: interaction-oriented robots today and tomorrow , 2005 .

[24]  E. Hess,et al.  ``Imprinting'' in Animals , 1958 .

[25]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  A conversational robot in an elderly care center: An ethnographic study , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[26]  A. Leffler,et al.  Theories of nonverbal behavior: A critical review of proxemics research , 1983 .

[27]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot , 2005, ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005..

[28]  Robin R. Murphy,et al.  Affective expression in appearance constrained robots , 2006, HRI '06.

[29]  Ana Paiva,et al.  Designing Empathic Agents: Adults Versus Kids , 2004, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[30]  Eun-Ju Lee,et al.  Flattery may get computers somewhere, sometimes: The moderating role of output modality, computer gender, and user gender , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[31]  H. Brenton,et al.  The Uncanny Valley : does it exist ? , 2005 .