Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot

HRI researchers interested in social robots have made large investments in humanoid robots. There is still sparse evidence that peoples' responses to robots differ from their responses to computer agents, suggesting that agent studies might serve to test HRI hypotheses. To help us understand the difference between people's social interactions with an agent and a robot, we experimentally compared people's responses in a health interview with (a) a computer agent projected either on a computer monitor or life-size on a screen, (b) a remote robot projected life-size on a screen, or (c) a collocated robot in the same room. We found a few behavioral and large attitude differences across these conditions. Participants forgot more and disclosed least with the collocated robot, next with the projected remote robot, and then with the agent. They spent more time with the collocated robot and their attitudes were most positive toward that robot. We discuss tradeoffs for HRI research of using collocated robots, remote robots, and computer agents as proxies of robots.

[1]  Jonathan Levav,et al.  When Questions Change Behavior , 2006, Psychological science.

[2]  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.

[3]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Defining Our Terms , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

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

[5]  Fiorella de Rosis,et al.  Evaluating a realistic agent in an advice-giving task , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Gloria Mark,et al.  Social presence with video and application sharing , 2001, GROUP.

[7]  Desney S. Tan,et al.  Information voyeurism: social impact of physically large displays on information privacy , 2003, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[8]  Bob G. Witmer,et al.  Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments , 1994 .

[9]  Robert B. Welch,et al.  How Can We Determine if the Sense of Presence Affects Task Performance? , 1999, Presence.

[10]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[11]  F. Camacho,et al.  Measuring Patients’ Trust in their Primary Care Providers , 2002, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[12]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  A Meta-Analytic Study of Social Desirability Distortion in Computer- Administered Questionnaires, Traditional Questionnaires, and Interviews , 1999 .

[13]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Adaptive testing: effects on user performance , 2002, CHI.

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

[15]  John P. Robinson,et al.  Measures Of Personality And Social Psychological Attitudes , 1991 .

[16]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  What Do We Know about Proximity and Distance in Work Groups? A Legacy of Research , 2002 .

[17]  R. Zajonc.  SOCIAL FACILITATION. , 1965, Science.

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

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

[20]  D. Rakison,et al.  Developmental origin of the animate-inanimate distinction. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  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.

[22]  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..

[23]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Effects of adaptive robot dialogue on information exchange and social relations , 2006, HRI '06.