The Peculiarities of Robot Embodiment (EmCorp-Scale) : Development, Validation and Initial Test of the Embodiment and Corporeality of Artificial Agents Scale

We propose a new theoretical framework assuming that embodiment effects in HAI and HRI are mediated by users' perceptions of an artificial entity's body-related capabilities. To enable the application of our framework to foster more theoretical-driven research, we developed a new self-report measurement that assesses bodilyrelated perceptions of the embodiment and corporeality - which we reveal as not being a binary characteristic of artificial entities. For the development and validation of the new scale we conducted two surveys and one video-based experiment. Exploratory factor analysis reveal a four-factorial solution with good reliability (Study 2, n = 442), which was confirmed via confirmatory factor analysis (Study 3, n = 260). In addition, we present first insights into the explanatory power of the scale: We reveal that humans? perceptions of an artificial entity's capabilities vary between virtual and physical embodiments, and that the evaluation of the artificial counterpart can be explained through the perceived capabilities. Practical applications and future research lines are discussed.

[1]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[2]  T. Kanda,et al.  Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots , 2006 .

[3]  D. Jackson,et al.  A Comparison Of Component And Factor Patterns: A Monte Carlo Approach. , 1982, Multivariate behavioral research.

[4]  Juan Fasola,et al.  A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly , 2013, J. Hum. Robot Interact..

[5]  Steven J. Stroessner,et al.  The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS): Development and Validation , 2017, 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI.

[6]  M. Bartlett.  Properties of Sufficiency and Statistical Tests , 1992 .

[7]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  Interacting with an embodied emotional character , 2003, DPPI '03.

[8]  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).

[9]  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..

[10]  Takanori Komatsu.  Comparison an On-screen Agent with a Robotic Agent in an Everyday Interaction Style: How to Make Users React Toward an On-screen Agent as if They are Reacting Toward a Robotic Agent , 2010 .

[11]  R. Gonzalez.  Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 2003 .

[12]  Tatsuo Arai,et al.  Direct comparison of psychological evaluation between virtual and real humanoids: Personal space and subjective impressions , 2014, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Mark H. Chignell,et al.  Communication of Emotion in Social Robots through Simple Head and Arm Movements , 2011, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[14]  K. Schermelleh-Engel,et al.  Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. , 2003 .

[15]  Kenji Araki,et al.  The Role of Embodiment and Perspective in Direction-Giving Systems , 2010, AAAI Fall Symposium: Dialog with Robots.

[16]  Kerstin Fischer,et al.  Levels of embodiment: Linguistic analyses of factors influencing HRI , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[17]  Tatsuo Arai,et al.  New measurement of psychological safety for humanoid , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[18]  B. Muthén,et al.  Applying Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Models for Continuous Outcomes to Likert Scale Data Complicates Meaningful Group Comparisons , 2004 .

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

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

[21]  Albert Satorra,et al.  Scaled and Adjusted Restricted Tests in Multi Sample Analysis of Moment Structures , 1999 .

[22]  Andy Field,et al.  Discovering statistics using SPSS: and sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll, 3rd Edition , 2009 .

[23]  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.

[24]  Ana Paiva,et al.  Are emotional robots more fun to play with? , 2008, RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[25]  H. Kaiser.  An index of factorial simplicity , 1974 .

[26]  Brian Scassellati,et al.  The Benefits of Interactions with Physically Present Robots over Video-Displayed Agents , 2011, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[27]  Tony Belpaeme,et al.  Comparing Robot Embodiments in a Guided Discovery Learning Interaction with Children , 2015, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[28]  Tom Cox,et al.  Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Users’Guide , 1993 .

[29]  J. Horn.  A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis , 1965, Psychometrika.

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

[31]  Jamy Li,et al.  The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[32]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  Investigating the effects of physical and virtual embodiment in task-oriented and conversational contexts , 2013, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..