EMPIRICAL RESULTS ON DETERMINANTS OF ACCEPTANCE AND EMOTION ATTRIBUTION IN CONFRONTATION WITH A ROBOT RABBIT

As robots increasingly enter people's everyday lives, it becomes ever more important to explore the conditions and determinants of acceptance of human interactions with these devices. Moreover, a positive feeling associated with the interaction with robots is a precondition for the user's willingness to engage in further interactions and establish long-term relationships. This article presents empirical results from two studies that focus on the user's perception of the robot rabbit Nabaztag, a small WiFi-enabled device with movable ears, integrated RFID reader functionality, and speech-synthesis capability. In the first study, 53 participants were confronted with a range of the Nabaztag's functionality, and, using RFID cards, they interacted with the rabbit. The analysis of people's answers concerning Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness as well as hedonic and pragmatic aspects, showed gender-accorded differences regarding the evaluation of the device. Neither the degree of familiarity with computers nor the fact of whether technical disfunctionality occurred during the trial influenced the evaluation of the robot, while ownership of a robotic toy let people evaluate the Nabaztag more positively. The second study took a more detailed observance of the effect of the rabbit's expression by its ears. In a within-subjects setting, a German (N = 100) and a U.S. American sample (N = 111) were asked to rate the rabbit's current emotional status from pictures that showed the rabbit with a variety of six different ear positions. Results indicate that people infer specific emotional states from the robot rabbit's different ear positions. Also illustrated is that observers' attribution of feelings to the rabbit depends on their cultural backgrounds. Implications and questions for future research are discussed.

[1]  K. M. Lee,et al.  Can robots manifest personality? : An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human-robot interaction , 2006 .

[2]  Ning Wang,et al.  Creating Rapport with Virtual Agents , 2007, IVA.

[3]  Lauralee Alben,et al.  Quality of experience: defining the criteria for effective interaction design , 1996, INTR.

[4]  Takanori Shibata,et al.  Living With Seal Robots—Its Sociopsychological and Physiological Influences on the Elderly at a Care House , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[5]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  Modeling Embodied Feedback with Virtual Humans , 2006, ZiF Workshop.

[6]  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).

[7]  M. Bradley,et al.  Measuring emotion: the Self-Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential. , 1994, Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry.

[8]  M. Csíkszentmihályi,et al.  Positive psychology. An introduction. , 2000, The American psychologist.

[9]  J. Bailenson,et al.  Digital Chameleons , 2005, Psychological science.

[10]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[11]  David Matsumoto,et al.  学術講演会 Emotion and Intercultural Communication , 2005 .

[12]  William W. Gaver,et al.  Alternatives: exploring information appliances through conceptual design proposals , 2000, CHI.

[13]  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).

[14]  Peter M. Gollwitzer,et al.  Symbolic self-completion , 1982 .

[15]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products , 2004, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[16]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Robots as dogs?: children's interactions with the robotic dog AIBO and a live australian shepherd , 2005, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[17]  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.

[18]  M. Csíkszentmihályi Beyond boredom and anxiety , 1975 .

[19]  S. Duncan,et al.  Some Signals and Rules for Taking Speaking Turns in Conversations , 1972 .

[20]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  Keep smiling: An embodied agents impact on users evaluation and smiling behavior , 2008 .

[21]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Nonverbal Communication , 2018, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science.

[22]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children , 2004, CHI EA '04.

[23]  Henrik I. Christensen,et al.  "My Roomba Is Rambo": Intimate Home Appliances , 2007, UbiComp.

[24]  Soumaya Ben Allouch,et al.  Acceptance and use of a zoomorphic robot in a domestic setting , 2010 .

[25]  Manfred Tscheligi,et al.  Addressing User Experience and Societal Impact in a User Study with a Humanoid Robot , 2009 .

[26]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Robot in Society: Friend or Appliance? , 1999 .

[27]  P. Ekman,et al.  The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding , 1969 .

[28]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home , 2006, HRI '06.

[29]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  The Effect of Perceived Hedonic Quality on Product Appealingness , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[30]  Astrid M. von der Pütten,et al.  Der Aufbau sozialer Beziehungen mit einem Roboter. Eine Beobachtungsstudie im Feld , 2010 .

[31]  P. Lang Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: computer applications , 1980 .

[32]  Illah R. Nourbakhsh,et al.  A survey of socially interactive robots , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[33]  Cory D. Kidd,et al.  A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly , 2006, Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006..

[34]  John Zimmerman,et al.  User experience over time: an initial framework , 2009, CHI.

[35]  Futoshi Naya,et al.  Evaluation of Communication with Robot and Agent: Are Robots Better Social Actors than Agents? , 2001, IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.

[36]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler? , 2005, 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[37]  Takanori Shibata,et al.  Robot therapy in a care house - its sociopsychological and physiological effects on the residents , 2006, Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006..

[38]  P. Jordan Designing Pleasurable Products: An Introduction to the New Human Factors , 2000 .

[39]  David Matsumoto,et al.  CULTURE AND NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR , 2006 .

[40]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[41]  N. Tractinsky,et al.  What is beautiful is usable , 2000, Interact. Comput..

[42]  John C. McCarthy,et al.  Aesthetics and experience-centered design , 2008, TCHI.

[43]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  MARC HASSENZAHL CHAPTER 3 The Thing and I: Understanding the Relationship Between User and Product , 2003 .

[44]  Ben J. A. Kröse,et al.  Enjoyment, intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people , 2008, 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[45]  Boris E. R. de Ruyter,et al.  Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home , 2005, Interact. Comput..

[46]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Hardware companions?: what online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human-robotic relationship , 2003, CHI '03.

[47]  R. Bhagat Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations , 2002 .

[48]  Michael Burmester,et al.  Usability ist nicht alles – Wege zu attraktiven Produkten (Beyond Usability – Appeal of interactive Products) , 2002, i-com.

[49]  P. Jordan Human factors for pleasure in product use. , 1998, Applied ergonomics.

[50]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  Comparing Emotional vs. Envelope Feedback for ECAs , 2008, IVA.

[51]  Patrick Olivier,et al.  Digital technologies and the emotional family , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[52]  Fernando Poyatos,et al.  LANGUAGE AND NONVERBAL SYSTEMS IN THE STRUCTURE OF FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION , 1983 .

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

[54]  L. Cronbach Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[55]  M. Argyle,et al.  The Communication of Inferior and Superior Attitudes by Verbal and Non‐verbal Signals* , 1970 .

[56]  A. Mehrabian,et al.  Decoding of inconsistent communications. , 1967, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[57]  Deborah A. Prentice,et al.  Psychological Correspondence of Possessions, Attitudes, and Values , 1987 .

[58]  Kristinn R. Thórisson,et al.  The Power of a Nod and a Glance: Envelope Vs. Emotional Feedback in Animated Conversational Agents , 1999, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[59]  William B. Gudykunst,et al.  Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations [2nd edition]: Geert Hofstede , 2005 .

[60]  J. P. Foley,et al.  Gesture and Environment , 1942 .

[61]  Caroline Hummels,et al.  Let's Make Things Engaging , 2005, Funology.

[62]  M. Slater,et al.  An experiment on fear of public speaking in virtual reality. , 2001, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics.

[63]  Victor Kaptelinin,et al.  Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design , 2006, First Monday.

[64]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .