Investigating the effects of physical and virtual embodiment in task-oriented and conversational contexts

Studies comparing physically embodied robots with virtually embodied screen characters (e.g. Powers et al., 2007. Jung and Lee, 2004.) have resulted in unsimilar findings with respect to subjective (users' evaluations) as well as objective (e.g. task performance of the users) measurements. The comparability of these results is mainly impeded by the use of different robots, a variety of virtual embodiments (video recording, computer simulation, animated characters, etc.) and different interaction scenarios. To overcome this problem, an experimental study was conducted in which the embodiment of an artificial entity was varied systematically as well as the type of interaction using a 2x2 between subjects design (N=83). Participants interacted with either a robot or a virtual representation of this robot (on a screen) in a task-oriented or a persuasive-conversational scenario. The results revealed that participants perceived the robot as more competent than the virtual character in the task-oriented scenario, but the opposite was true for the persuasive-conversational scenario. Furthermore, participants in the task-oriented scenario felt better after the interaction than participants who had a persuasive-conversational interaction with the artificial entity, regardless of its embodiment. No statistically significant differences between the experimental conditions emerged with respect to objective measures (persuasion and task performance). Various explanations for these findings are discussed and implications for the application of robots and virtual characters are derived.

[1]  F. Biocca,et al.  Internal Consistency and Reliability of the Networked MindsMeasure of Social Presence , 2004 .

[2]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Investigation of differences on impressions of and behaviors toward real and virtual robots between elder people and university students , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[3]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Effect of a robot on user perceptions , 2004, 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566).

[4]  Gloria Mark,et al.  Social conventions in computer-mediated communication: a comparison of three online shared virtual environments , 2002 .

[5]  Frank Biocca,et al.  Toward a More Robust Theory and Measure of Social Presence: Review and Suggested Criteria , 2003, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[6]  Charles R. Crowell,et al.  Robot social presence and gender: Do females view robots differently than males? , 2008, 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[7]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Measurement of Anxiety toward Robots , 2006, ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[8]  D. Watson,et al.  Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of deception on interpersonal perceptions. , 1984 .

[10]  T. Judge,et al.  The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: preliminary test of a theoretical model. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[11]  Gerhard Sagerer,et al.  Theory of Mind (ToM) on robots: A functional neuroimaging study , 2008, 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[12]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Helper agent: designing an assistant for human-human interaction in a virtual meeting space , 2000, CHI.

[13]  C. Bartneck,et al.  In your face, robot! The influence of a character's embodiment on how users perceive its emotional expressions , 2004 .

[14]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[15]  H. Maturana,et al.  Autopoiesis and Cognition , 1980 .

[16]  Rolf Pfeifer,et al.  Understanding intelligence , 2020, Inequality by Design.

[17]  Futoshi Naya,et al.  Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[18]  C. Tu,et al.  The Relationship of Social Presence and Interaction in Online Classes , 2002 .

[19]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  Social Communicative Effects of a Virtual Program Guide , 2005, IVA.

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

[21]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Prediction of Human Behavior in Human--Robot Interaction Using Psychological Scales for Anxiety and Negative Attitudes Toward Robots , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[22]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction , 2006, ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[23]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  From embodied to socially embedded agents – Implications for interaction-aware robots , 2002, Cognitive Systems Research.

[24]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  The Effects of an Embodied Conversational Agent's Nonverbal Behavior on User's Evaluation and Behavioral Mimicry , 2007, IVA.

[25]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  A field study of use of synchronous computer-mediated communication in asynchronous learning networks , 2002 .

[26]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Embodiment and Human-Robot Interaction: A Task-Based Perspective , 2007, RO-MAN 2007 - The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[27]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Anthropomorphic Interactions with a Robot and Robot–like Agent , 2008 .

[28]  David H. Silvera,et al.  Judgment by Quantity , 1994 .

[29]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  THE EFFECT OF INTERACTION BEHAVIOR ON SOURCE CREDIBILITY, HOMOPHILY, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION , 1974 .

[30]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  Media Equation Revisited: Do Users Show Polite Reactions towards an Embodied Agent? , 2009, IVA.

[31]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot , 2007, 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[32]  Hiroshi Ishiguro,et al.  Effect of robot's active touch on people's motivation , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[33]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[34]  Reid G. Simmons,et al.  GRACE: An Autonomous Robot for the AAAI Robot Challenge , 2003, AI Mag..

[35]  Ana Paiva,et al.  iCat, the chess player: the influence of embodiment in the enjoyment of a game , 2008, AAMAS.

[36]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  eMuu : an embodied emotional character for the ambient intelligent home , 2002 .

[37]  Wei Huang,et al.  Camera angle affects dominance in video-mediated communication , 2002, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[38]  K. M. Lee,et al.  Effects of Physical Embodiment on Social Presence of Social Robots , 2004 .

[39]  Bernard Guerin,et al.  Mere presence effects in humans: A review , 1986 .

[40]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Experimental investigation of relationships between anxiety, negative attitudes, and allowable distance of robots , 2007 .

[41]  Andrea Lockerd Thomaz,et al.  Touched by a robot: An investigation of subjective responses to robot-initiated touch , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).