Robots are Always Social: Robotic Movements are Automatically Interpreted as Social Cues

Physical movement is a dominant element in robot behavior. We evaluate if robotic movements are automatically interpreted as social cues, even if the robot has no social role. 24 participants performed the Implicit Associations Test, classifying robotic gestures into direction categories ("to-front" or "to-back") and words into social categories (willingness or unwillingness for interaction). Our findings show that social interpretation of the robot's gestures is an automatic process. The implicit social interpretation influenced both classification tasks, and could not be avoided even when it decreased participant's performance. This effect is of importance for the HCI community as designers should consider, that even if a robot is not intended for social interaction (e.g. factory robot), people will not be able to avoid interpreting its movement as social cues. Interaction designers should leverage this phenomenon and consider the social interpretation that will be automatically associated with their robots' movement.

[1]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Experiences developing socially acceptable interactions for a robotic trash barrel , 2015, 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[2]  Guy Hoffman,et al.  The Greeting Machine: An Abstract Robotic Object for Opening Encounters , 2018, 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[3]  Guy Hoffman,et al.  Comparing Social Robot, Screen and Voice Interfaces for Smart-Home Control , 2017, CHI.

[4]  F. Heider,et al.  An experimental study of apparent behavior , 1944 .

[5]  Brian R. Duffy,et al.  Anthropomorphism and the social robot , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[6]  Wendy Ju Approachability : How People Interpret Automatic Door Movement as Gesture , 2008 .

[7]  Andreas Theodorou,et al.  What Does the Robot Think? Transparency as a Fundamental Design Requirement for Intelligent Systems , 2016, IJCAI 2016.

[8]  Christian Keysers,et al.  The anthropomorphic brain: The mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions , 2007, NeuroImage.

[9]  C. Frith,et al.  Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’ , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  Fumihide Tanaka,et al.  The implementation of care-receiving robot at an English learning school for children , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[11]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method Variables and Construct Validity , 2005, Personality & social psychology bulletin.