Cover not available

Article published In: Interaction Studies
Vol. 17:3 (2016) ► pp.390–404

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The Effects of Exposure to Different Social Robots on Attitudes toward Preferences

 | Aalborg University, Denmark
 | Aalborg University, Denmark
 | Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Published online: 30 March 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.04vla
Abstract
We present results of a quasi-experimental study investigating how user preference might change after direct interaction with two different types of robot regarding morphology and affordances: a machine-like that interacts through touch, and a human-like that interacts verbally. The study was performed in an art exhibition setting, where visitors had the opportunity to interact with the robots voluntarily, and were asked to fill out questionnaires before and after the experience. Post interactions, visitors preferred to touch the machine-like “hard” robot despite initial stated preference for soft materials, preferred mutual contact despite initial preference of subject to initiate touch, and preferred communication with a robot that could touch rather than initial preference for a robot that could “see”. Overall, users showed a significant constant preference for the machine-like robot, reportedly feeling a stronger connection with it than with the human-like one as it met their expectations, and they found its movements more appealing. Social conditioning can render people reluctant to touch a robot with very human-like appearance, and set the expectations for interaction too high to meet. Our results, lastly, indicate that interaction with more than one type of social robot can affect the interaction experience for each of the robots.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The trial
    • 2.1Stimuli
    • 2.2Setting
    • 2.3Method
    • 2.4Visitors
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Entrance questionnaire
    • 3.2Exit questionnaire
    • 3.3.Pre/post question
  • 4.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (30)
References
Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartneck, C., Reichenbach, J., & Carpenter, J. (2006). Use of praise and punishment in human-robot collaborative teams. In The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN 2006), pp. 177–182. IEEE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Basoeki, F., DallaLibera, F., & Ishiguro, H. (2015). How do People Expect Humanoids to Respond to Touch? International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 743–765. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bemelmans, R., Gelderblom, G. J., Jonker, P., & De Witte, L. (2012). Socially assistive robots in elderly care: A systematic review into effects and effectiveness. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 13(2), 114–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, W. L., & Šabanović, S. (2015). Interaction Expands Function: Social Shaping of the Therapeutic Robot PARO in a Nursing Home. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, (pp. 343–350). ACM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M., Woods, S., Koay, K. L., Nehaniv, C. L., Sisbot, A., Alami, R., & Siméon, T. (2006). How may I serve you?: a robot companion approaching a seated person in a helping context. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction, (pp. 172–179). ACM. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Ruyter, B., Saini, P., Markopoulos, P., & Van Breemen, A. (2005). Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interacting with computers, 17(5), 522–541. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., & Powers, A. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behaviour to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN’03), pp. 55–60. IEEE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffman, G. (2011). On stage: robots as performers. In RSS 2011 Workshop on Human-Robot Interaction: Perspectives and Contributions to Robotics from the Human Sciences (Vol. 11).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jochum, E., Vlachos, E., Christoffersen, A., Nielsen, S. G., Hameed, I. A., & Tan, Z. H. (2016). Using Theatre to Study Interaction with Care Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(4), 457–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroos, C., & Herath, D. C. (2012). Evoking agency: Attention model and behavior control in a robotic art installation. Leonardo, 45(5), 401–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuwamura, K., Yamazaki, R., Nishio, S., & Ishiguro, H. (2014). Elderly care using teleoperated android Telenoid. Gerontechnology, 13(2), 226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, J., Kizilcec, R., Bailenson, J., & Ju, W. (2015). Social robots and virtual agents as lecturers for video instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lohse, M. (2010). Investigating the influence of situations and expectations on user behavior: empirical analyses in human-robot interaction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Doctoral Thesis. Bielefeld University, Technical Faculty, Germany.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moyle, W., Cooke, M., Beattie, E., Jones, C., Klein, B., Cook, G., & Gray, C. (2013). Exploring the effect of companion robots on emotional expression in older adults with dementia: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 39(5), 46–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
BBC (2015, July 15). Five things about Japan’s robot hotel. Retrieved from [URL]
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (2002). The Media Equations: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. CLSI PublicationsGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K., & Dickerson, P. (2009). From isolation to communication: a case study evaluation of robot assisted play for children with autism with a minimally expressive humanoid robot. In Second International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI'09), pp. 205–211. IEEE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sciutti, A., Rea, F., & Sandini, G. (2014). When you are young, (robot’s) looks matter . Developmental changes in the desired properties of a robot friend. In The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2014), pp. 567–573. IEEE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2006). Interactive humanoid robots for a science museum. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction, (pp. 305–312). ACM. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sim, D. Y. Y., & Loo, C. K. (2015). Extensive assessment and evaluation methodologies on assistive social robots for modelling human – robot interaction – A review. Information Sciences, 3011, 305–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Koay, K. L., & Ho, W. C. (2014). Views from within a narrative: Evaluating long-term human – robot interaction in a naturalistic environment using open-ended scenarios. Cognitive computation, 6(4), 741–759 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Erp, J. B., & Toet, A. (2013). How to touch humans: Guidelines for social agents and robots that can touch. In 2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), pp. 780–785. IEEE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vlachos, E., & Schärfe, H. (2013). The Geminoid Reality. In HCI International 2013-Posters’ Extended Abstracts, CCIS 3741 (pp. 621–625). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Social robots as persuasive agents. In International Conference on Social Computing and Social Media, LNCS 8531 (pp. 277–284). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). An Open-Ended Approach to Evaluating Android Faces. In The 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN 2015), pp. 756–751. IEEE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Der Pütten, A. M., Krämer, N. C., Becker-Asano, C., & Ishiguro, H. (2011). An android in the field. In The 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 283–284. ACM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walters, M. L., Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boekhorst, R., & Koay, K. L. (2008). Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Autonomous Robots, 24(2), 159–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (26)

Cited by 26 other publications

Chen, Yi-Chuan, Hsin-Yu Chung, Sung-En Chien, Chien-Chun Yang & Su-Ling Yeh
2026. Shape Symbolism in the Design of Socially Interactive Robots: Rounded vs. Angular Contours. International Journal of Social Robotics 18:2 DOI logo
Ossadnik, Jonas & Katrin Muehlfeld
2025. Familiarity Breeds Affinity – How Personal Experiences Change Employees’ Attitudes Towards a Social Robot. International Journal of Social Robotics 17:7 ► pp. 1177 ff. DOI logo
Sfar, Nadia, Mariem Sboui & Ons Baati
2025. The impact of chatbot anthropomorphism on customer experience and chatbot usage intention: a technology acceptance approach. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 17:2 ► pp. 168 ff. DOI logo
Sharan, Navya N., Jochen Peter, Jeroen S. Lemmens, Rinaldo Kühne, Chiara de Jong & Alex Barco
2025. Robots as Social Companions? Investigating Longitudinal Companionship and Social Presence in Child-Robot Interaction. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fukawa, Nobuyuki, Yu‐Shan (Sandy) Huang & Barry J. Babin
2024. Pepper, just show me the way! How robotic shopping assistants should look and act. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 23:3 ► pp. 1329 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Maosheng, Juan Li, Lei Feng, Shih-Chih Chen & Ming-Lang Tseng
2024. Service robot anthropomorphism on consumer usage intention: curvilinear and linear effect. Industrial Management & Data Systems 124:2 ► pp. 612 ff. DOI logo
Diana, Fabiola, Misako Kawahara, Isabella Saccardi, Ruud Hortensius, Akihiro Tanaka & Mariska E. Kret
2023. A Cross-Cultural Comparison on Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Towards Artificial Agents. International Journal of Social Robotics 15:8 ► pp. 1439 ff. DOI logo
Shen, Junyi, Guyue Tang & Shinichi Koyama
2023. Robot occupations affect the categorization border between human and robot faces. Scientific Reports 13:1 DOI logo
Blaurock, Marah, Martina Čaić, Mehmet Okan & Alexander P. Henkel
2022. Robotic role theory: an integrative review of human–robot service interaction to advance role theory in the age of social robots. Journal of Service Management 33:6 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Gemeinboeck, Petra & Rob Saunders
2022. Moving beyond the mirror: relational and performative meaning making in human–robot communication. AI & SOCIETY 37:2 ► pp. 549 ff. DOI logo
Jørgensen, Jonas, Kirsten Borup Bojesen & Elizabeth Jochum
2022. Is a Soft Robot More “Natural”? Exploring the Perception of Soft Robotics in Human–Robot Interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics 14:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Schreibelmayr, Simon & Martina Mara
2022. Robot Voices in Daily Life: Vocal Human-Likeness and Application Context as Determinants of User Acceptance. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Xie, Lishan & Shaohui Lei
2022. The nonlinear effect of service robot anthropomorphism on customers’ usage intention: A privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management 107 ► pp. 103312 ff. DOI logo
Blut, Markus, Cheng Wang, Nancy V. Wünderlich & Christian Brock
2021. Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: a meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 49:4 ► pp. 632 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Qian Qian & Hyun Jung Park
2021. How anthropomorphism affects trust in intelligent personal assistants. Industrial Management & Data Systems 121:12 ► pp. 2722 ff. DOI logo
Jørgensen, Jonas & Mads Bering Christiansen
2021. The Sounds of Softness. Designing Sound for Human-Soft Robot Interaction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 DOI logo
Zhou, Yuefang, Tristan Kornher, Janett Mohnke & Martin H. Fischer
2021. Tactile Interaction with a Humanoid Robot: Effects on Physiology and Subjective Impressions. International Journal of Social Robotics 13:7 ► pp. 1657 ff. DOI logo
Gracia, Luis, J. Ernesto Solanes, Pau Muñoz-Benavent, Jaime Valls Miro, Carlos Perez-Vidal & Josep Tornero
2019. Human-robot collaboration for surface treatment tasks. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 20:1 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Maj, Konrad & Pawel Zarzycki
2019. Meeting with social robots like the cat-cucumber meeting? An integrated model of human-robot first contact. Psychological perspective.. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 10:1 ► pp. 454 ff. DOI logo
Ramirez-Benavides, Kryscia, Adrian Vega & Luis A. Guerrero
2019. 2019 IV Jornadas Costarricenses de Investigación en Computación e Informática (JoCICI), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Vega, Adrian, Kryscia Ramírez-Benavides, Luis A. Guerrero & Gustavo López
2019. 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing and Ambient ‪Intelligence UCAmI 2019‬, ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo
Vega, Adrián, Kryscia Ramírez-Benavidez & Luis A. Guerrero
2019. Tool UTAUT Applied to Measure Interaction Experience with NAO Robot. In Human-Computer Interaction. Design Practice in Contemporary Societies [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11568], ► pp. 501 ff. DOI logo
Herath, Damith C., Elizabeth Jochum & Evgenios Vlachos
2018. An Experimental Study of Embodied Interaction and Human Perception of Social Presence for Interactive Robots in Public Settings. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems 10:4 ► pp. 1096 ff. DOI logo
Jochum, Elizabeth, Bill Vorn, Paul McIlvenny, Louis-Philippe Demers, Evgenios Vlachos & Pirkko Raudaskoski
2018.  [Electronic Workshops in Computing, ], DOI logo
Shiomi, Masahiro, Kodai Shatani, Takashi Minato & Hiroshi Ishfguro
2018. 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), ► pp. 364 ff. DOI logo
Vlachos, Evgenios & Zheng-Hua Tan
2018. 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), ► pp. 1255 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue