‘Give me a hug’: the effects of touch and autonomy on people's responses to embodied social agents

Embodied social agents are programmed to display human‐like social behaviour to increase intuitiveness of interacting with these agents. It is yet unclear what the differences in peoples' responses are to different types of agents' social behaviours. One example is touch. Despite robots' physical embodiment and increasing autonomy, the effect of communicative touch has been a mostly overlooked aspect of human‐robot interaction. This video‐based, 2 × 2 between‐subject survey experiment (N = 119) found that the combination of touch and proactivity influenced whether people saw the robot as machine‐like and dependable. Furthermore, participants' attitude toward robots in general was found to influence perceived closeness between a human and a robot. Results show that communicative touch could be considered a more appropriate behaviour for proactive agents rather than reactive agents. Also, people that are generally more positive towards robots find robots that interact by touch less machine‐like. These effects illustrate that careful consideration is necessary when incorporating social behaviours in agents' physical interaction design. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Antti Oulasvirta,et al.  Six modes of proactive resource management: a user-centric typology for proactive behaviors , 2004, NordiCHI '04.

[2]  Christopher A. Miller,et al.  Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems , 2004, CACM.

[3]  Sang Ryong Kim,et al.  Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people's loneliness in human-robot interaction , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[4]  M. Patterson,et al.  Touch, compliance, and interpersonal affect , 1986 .

[5]  Andrea Lockerd Thomaz,et al.  Using perspective taking to learn from ambiguous demonstrations , 2006, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[6]  A. Aron,et al.  Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness , 1992 .

[7]  Joseph Terkel,et al.  REDUCTION OF STATE-ANXIETY BY PETTING ANIMALS IN A CONTROLLED LABORATORY EXPERIMENT , 2003 .

[8]  F. N. Willis,et al.  The use of interpersonal touch in securing compliance , 1980 .

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

[10]  K. MacLean,et al.  The Haptic Creature Project : Social Human-Robot Interaction through Affective Touch , 2008 .

[11]  T. Bickmore.  Relational agents : effecting change through human-computer relationships , 2003 .

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

[13]  Sven Wachsmuth,et al.  What can I do for you? Appearance and Application of Robots , 2007 .

[14]  David Lee,et al.  The influence of subjects' personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment , 2005, ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005..

[15]  N. Guéguen.  Touch, Awareness of Touch, and Compliance with a Request , 2002, Perceptual and motor skills.

[16]  Anthony Jameson,et al.  Pros and Cons of Controllability: An Empirical Study , 2002, AH.

[17]  Vanessa Evers,et al.  Relational vs. group self-construal: Untangling the role of national culture in HRI , 2008, 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[18]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Methodological Issues in HRI: A Comparison of Live and Video-Based Methods in Robot to Human Approach Direction Trials , 2006, ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[19]  K. MacDorman,et al.  Subjective Ratings of Robot Video Clips for Human Likeness, Familiarity, and Eeriness: An Exploration of the Uncanny Valley , 2006 .

[20]  R. Heslin,et al.  Perceptions of cross-sex and same-sex nonreciprocal touch: It is better to give than to receive , 1982 .

[21]  Keith Cheverst,et al.  Investigating Context-aware Information Push vs. Information Pull to Tourists , 2001 .

[22]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms , 1997, CHI.

[23]  Rino Falcone,et al.  Trust and control: A dialectic link , 2000, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[24]  Kristina Höök,et al.  Evaluating the utility and usability of an adaptive hypermedia system , 1997, IUI '97.

[25]  Adriana Tapus,et al.  Socially Assistive Robots: The Link between Personality, Empathy, Physiological Signals, and Task Performance , 2008, AAAI Spring Symposium: Emotion, Personality, and Social Behavior.

[26]  Heinz Wörn,et al.  A novel approach to proactive human-robot cooperation , 2005, ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005..

[27]  Peter A. Hancock,et al.  Fatigue and Automation-Induced Impairments in Simulated Driving Performance , 1998 .

[28]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  The huggable: a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch , 2006, CCNC 2006. 2006 3rd IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, 2006..