Case-Sensitive Methods for Evaluating HRI from a Sociological Point of View

Evaluating and shaping the quality of interaction between humans and service or “social” robots from a genuine sociological point of view is still a pivotal methodological challenge at stake in the development of successful Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). In this regard an interdisciplinary research group, dedicated to the study of HRI in general, is developing a theory-driven method based on sociological interaction models with the goal of identifying the most important aspects in achieving satisfactory interaction experience. The method is suitable for experimental settings, e.g. in the context of laboratory research and development environments as often encountered in Fabrication Laboratories (FabLab). The method uses Harold Garfinkel’s concept of breaching experiments as a core instrument in combination with Erving Goffman’s Frame Analysis. The baseline of the method is a genuine sociological definition of Social Action on the basis of theories belonging to the paradigm of Symbolic Interactionism.

[1]  Stefan Brandenburg,et al.  Do We Need a New Internet for Elderly People? A Cross-Cultural Investigation , 2013, HCI.

[2]  H. Garfinkel.  Studies in Ethnomethodology , 1968 .

[3]  N. Luhmann.  Soziale Systeme : Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie , 1984 .

[4]  T. Abel,et al.  Mind, Self, and Society , 1934 .

[5]  Karl F. MacDorman,et al.  Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures , 2008, AI & SOCIETY.

[6]  Manfred Tscheligi,et al.  A methodological variation for acceptance evaluation of Human-Robot Interaction in public places , 2008, RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[7]  Tingting Xu,et al.  The Autonomous City Explorer: Towards Natural Human-Robot Interaction in Urban Environments , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[8]  W. Reese-Schäfer.  Niklas Luhmann: Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1984, 674 S , 2016 .

[9]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Mechanical Ottoman: How Robotic Furniture Offers and Withdraws Support , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[10]  Frédéric Kaplan,et al.  Who is Afraid of the Humanoid? Investigating Cultural Differences in the Acceptance of Robots , 2004, Int. J. Humanoid Robotics.

[11]  Minoru Asada,et al.  Learning for joint attention helped by functional development , 2006, Adv. Robotics.

[12]  M. Matarić,et al.  Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics , 2007 .

[13]  Yukie Nagai,et al.  Does Disturbance Discourage People from Communicating with a Robot? , 2007, RO-MAN 2007 - The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[14]  Katharina J. Rohlfing,et al.  Better be reactive at the beginning. Implications of the first seconds of an encounter for the tutoring style in human-robot-interaction , 2012, 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[15]  D. Baecker,et al.  Who Qualifies for Communication? A Systems Perspective on Human and Other Possibly Intelligent Beings Taking Part in the Next Society , 2011 .

[16]  D. Baecker.  Who Qualifies for Communication , 2011 .

[17]  Clifford Nass,et al.  I'm sorry, Dave: i'm afraid i won't do that: social aspects of human-agent conflict , 2009, CHI.

[18]  G. Lindemann.  Doppelte Kontingenz und reflexive Anthropologie , 1999 .

[19]  M. Tscheligi,et al.  Robots asking for directions: the willingness of passers-by to support robots , 2010, HRI 2010.

[20]  Morana Alac,et al.  Fumihide Tanaka engagement in the practice of social robotics When a robot is social : Spatial arrangements and multimodal semiotic , 2011 .

[21]  Justin W. Hart,et al.  No fair!!: an interaction with a cheating robot , 2010, HRI 2010.

[22]  E. Goffman.  Behavior in Public Places , 1963 .

[23]  Sebastian Wrede,et al.  When a robot orients visitors to an exhibit. Referential practices and interactional dynamics in real world HRI , 2014, The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[24]  E. Goffman.  Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order , 1971 .

[25]  E. Goffman.  Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior , 1967 .

[26]  Cosima Wagner.  Robotopia Nipponica : Recherchen zur Akzeptanz von Robotern in Japan , 2013 .

[27]  Anna-Lisa Vollmer,et al.  Robot feedback shapes the tutor’s presentation: How a robot’s online gaze strategies lead to micro-adaptation of the human’s conduct , 2013 .

[28]  Hermann J. Müller,et al.  Implications of Robot Actions for Human Perception. How Do We Represent Actions of the Observed Robots? , 2014, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[29]  Diego Compagna,et al.  Lost in translation? The dilemma of alignment within participatory technology developments , 2012, Poiesis Prax..