ABSTRACT
In social Human-Robot Interaction (sHRI) people have studied social interactions with awkward, confrontational, or unsettling robots. In order to create these situations, researchers often secretly control the robot (the "Wizard of Oz", WoZ, technique), use confederates (researchers pretending to be participants), or the researchers themselves create the desired social condition. While these studies may be antagonistic, they are designed to be ethical; when conducting a study, IRB (Institutional Review Board) processes are in place to assess the study design for potential risk to participants, and to ultimately protect the public. However, these processes do not generally involve assessment of impact on the researchers conducting the study. In our own work, we have noted how researcher "wizards" in social HRI experiments, particularly those which place participants in awkward or confrontational situations, can themselves be negatively impacted from the experience when their experiment protocol has them antagonize, deceive, or argue with participants. In this paper, we explore how experimental design can impact the wellbeing of the researchers, particularly for wizards in social HRI experiments. By building a psychological grounding for the impact on people who do socially stressful actions, we evaluate the potential for researcher social stress in recent sHRI studies. Our summary and discussion of this survey results in recommendations for future HRI research to reduce the burden on wizards in their own experiments.
- Christoph Bartneck, Timo Bleeker, Jeroen Bun, Pepijn Fens, and Lynyrd Riet. 2010. The influence of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment when interacting with robots. Paladyn Journal of Behavioral Ro 1, 2: 109--115.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christoph Bartneck, Michel van der Hoek, Omar Mubin, and Abdullah Al Mahmud. 2007. "Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do!" Proceeding of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction - HRI '07, 2007: 217. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christoph Bartneck, Marcel Verbunt, Omar Mubin, and Abdullah Al Mahmud. 2007. To kill a mockingbird robot. Human-robot interaction, ACM Press, 8 Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. F. Baumeister and M. R. Leary. 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin 117, 3: 497--529.Google Scholar
- Diana Baumrind. 1985. Research using intentional deception. Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist 40, 2: 165--174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gurit E. Birnbaum, Moran Mizrahi, Guy Hoffman, Harry T. Reis, Eli J. Finkel, and Omri Sass. 2016. Machines as a source of consolation: Robot responsiveness increases human approach behavior and desire for companionship. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction 2016--April: 165--171. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul Bremner, Huseyin Cakal, Miriam Koschate-reis, and Mark Levine. 2015. Social Tele-Operation by Confederates?: Applying the Actor-Confederate Paradigm to HRI. Workshop in IROS.Google Scholar
- Gordon Briggs and Matthias Scheutz. 2014. How Robots Can Affect Human Behavior: Investigating the Effects of Robotic Displays of Protest and Distress. International Journal of Social Robotics 6, 3: 343--355.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Priscilla Briggs, Matthias Scheutz, and Linda Tickle-Degnen. 2015. Are Robots Ready for Administering Health Status Surveys?. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI '15, ACM Press, 327--334. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Drazen Brscić, Hiroyuki Kidokoro, Yoshitaka Suehiro, and Takayuki Kanda. 2015. Escaping from Children's Abuse of Social Robots. Human-Robot Interaction, ACM Press, 59--66. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Emily A Butler, Boris Egloff, Frank H Wilhelm, Nancy C Smith, Elizabeth A Erickson, and James J Gross. 2003. The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion 3, 1: 48--67.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sheldon Cohen. 1980. Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: a review of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin 88, 1: 82.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Cormier, G. Newman, M. Nakane, and J. E. Young. 2013. Would You Do as a Robot Commands? An Obedience Study for Human-Robot Interaction. In Proc. of the First International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, iHAI'13.Google Scholar
- Marcia A. Corvetto and Jeffrey M. Taekman. 2013. To Die or Not To Die? A Review of Simulated Death. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare 8, 1: 8--12.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Norman S Endler and J D Parker. 1990. Multidimensional assessment of coping: a critical evaluation. Journal of personality and social psychology 58, 5: 844--854.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nathanael J. Fast, Nir Halevy, and Adam D. Galinsky. 2012. The destructive nature of power without status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48, 1: 391--394.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Julie Fitness and Marie Curtis. 2005. Emotional intelligence and the Trait Meta-Mood Scale: Relationships with empathy , attributional complexity, self-control, and responses to interpersonal conflicts. E-Journal of Applied Psychology 1, 1: 50--62.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. L. Geis and Tae H. Moon. 1981. Machiavellianism and deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41, 4: 766--775.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. a. Goodrich, J. W. Crandall, and E. Barakova. 2013. Teleoperation and Beyond for Assistive Humanoid Robots. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics 9, 1: 175--226.Google ScholarCross Ref
- James J Gross. 2002. Emotion regulation?: Affective , cognitive , and social consequences. 281--291.Google Scholar
- Craig Haney, Curtis Banks, and Philip Zimbardo. 1973. Interpersonal dynamics in a stimulated prison. Journal of Criminology and Penology 1, October: 69--97.Google Scholar
- Pamela J. Hinds and Diane E. Bailey. 2003. Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams. Organization Science 14, 6: 615--632. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karen Horney. 1945. Our inner conflicts: A constructive theory of neurosis. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Daniel Howlader. 2011. Moral and ethical questions for robotics public policy. -- Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics, and Policy: 1--6. Retrieved from http://www.synesisjournal.com/vol2_g/2011.2_G1--6_Howlader_abstract.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Malte F. Jung, Nikolas Martelaro, and Pamela J. Hinds. 2015. Using Robots to Moderate Team Conflict. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI '15, 229--236. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter H. Jr. Kahn, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, et al. 2012. Do People Hold a Humanoid Robot Morally Accountable for the Harm It Causes? 33--40. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter H. Kahn, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, et al. 2015. Will People Keep the Secret of a Humanoid Robot? Human-Robot Interaction -, 173--180. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter H Kahn, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, et al. 2012. "Robovie, you'll have to go into the closet now": children's social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental psychology 48, 2: 303--14.Google Scholar
- J. F. Kelley. 1984. An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 2, 1: 26--41. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Richard S Lazarus and Susan Folkman. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.Google Scholar
- L. C. Lederman. 1992. Debriefing: Toward a Systematic Assessment of Theory and Practice. Simulation & Gaming 23, 2: 145--160. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. R. Lee and C. I. Nass. 2010. Trust in Computers: The Computers-Are-Social-Actors (CASA) Paradigm and Trustworthiness Perception in Human-Computer Communication. In Trust and Technology in a Ubiquitous Modern Environment: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives. IGI Global, 1--15.Google Scholar
- Mk Lee, Jodi Forlizzi, and Sara Kiesler. 2012. Personalization in HRI: A longitudinal field experiment. Human-Robot Interaction, 319--326. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rich Ling. 2002. The social juxtaposition of mobile telephone conversa- tions and public spaces. Conference on the Social Consequences of Mobile Telephones, July 2002.Google Scholar
- Alexandru Litoiu, Daniel Ullman, Jason Kim, and Brian Scassellati. 2015. Evidence that Robots Trigger a Cheating Detector in Humans. Human-Robot Interaction, 165--172. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David D. Luxton. 2014. Recommendations for the ethical use and design of artificial intelligent care providers. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 62, 1: 1--10.Google ScholarCross Ref
- MARGARET L. McLAUGHLIN and MICHAEL J. CODY. 1982. AWKWARD SILENCES: BEHAVIORAL ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONVERSATIONAL LAPSE. Human Communication Research 8, 4: 299--316.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S Milgram. 1963. Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of abnormal psychology 67: 371--378.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Judson Mills. 1976. A procedure for explaining experiments involving deception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2, 1: 3--13.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Naoki Ohshima, Keita Kimijima, Junji Yamato, and Naoki Mukawa. 2015. A conversational robot with vocal and bodily fillers for recovering from awkward silence at turn-takings. International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, IEEE, 325--330.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. M. Richards and James J. Gross. 1999. Composure at Any Cost? The Cognitive Consequences of Emotion Suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25, 8: 1033--1044.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laurel D. Riek. 2012. Wizard of Oz Studies in HRI: A Systematic Review and New Reporting Guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 1, 1: 119--136.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Laurel D. Riek and Don Howard. 2014. A Code of Ethics for the Human-Robot Interaction Profession. We Robot Conference: 1--10.Google Scholar
- Laurel D. Riek, Philip C. Paul, and Peter Robinson. 2010. When my robot smiles at me: Enabling human-robot rapport via real-time head gesture mimicry. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces 3, 1: 99--108.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maha Salem, Gabriella Lakatos, Farshid Amirabdollahian, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2015. Would You Trust a (Faulty) Robot?: Effects of Error, Task Type and Personality on Human-Robot Cooperation and Trust. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction: 141--148. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter Salovey, John D Mayer, Susan Lee Goldman, Carolyn Turvey, and Tibor P Palfai. 1995. Emotional Attention, Clarity, and Repair: Exploring Emotional Intelligence Using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Emotion, Disclosure, and Health, 125--154.Google Scholar
- Stela H Seo, Denise Geiskkovitch, Masayuki Nakane, Corey King, and James E Young. 2015. Poor Thing?! Would You Feel Sorry for a Simulated Robot? A comparison of empathy toward a physical and a simulated robot. Human-Robot Interaction, 125--132. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alessandro Settimi, Corrado Pavan, Valerio Varricchio, et al. 2014. A modular approach for remote operation of humanoid robots in search and rescue scenarios. Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems (MESAS) 8906: 192--200.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Short, J. Hart, M. Vu, and B. Scassellati. 2010. No fair!! An interaction with a cheating robot. 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI): 219--226. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stevens S. Smith and Deborah Richardson. 1983. Amelioration of deception and harm in psychological research: The important role of debriefing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 5: 1075--1082.Google ScholarCross Ref
- James E Young, Jayoung Sung, Amy Voida, et al. 2010. Evaluating Human-Robot Interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 1: 53--67.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Philip G Zimbardo, Christina Maslach, Craig Haney, and Prologue G Philip Zimbardo. 1999. Reflections on the Stanford Prison Experiment: Genesis, Transformations, Consequences. In Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm. 193--237.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Wizard of Awwws: Exploring Psychological Impact on the Researchers in Social HRI Experiments
Recommendations
Wizard of Oz studies in HRI: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines
Inaugural Special Issue: Intersection of Systems Sciences and Human SciencesMany researchers use Wizard of Oz (WoZ) as an experimental technique, but there are methodological concerns over its use, and no comprehensive criteria on how to best employ it. We systematically review 54 WoZ experiments published in the primary HRI ...
The oz of wizard: simulating the human for interaction research
HRI '09: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interactionThe Wizard of Oz experiment method has a long tradition of acceptance and use within the field of human-robot interaction. The community has traditionally downplayed the importance of interaction evaluations run with the inverse model: the human ...
Exploring interruption in HRI using wizard of oz
HRI '10: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interactionWe are interested in exploring how robots controlled using Wizard of Oz (WoO) should interrupt humans in various social settings. While there is considerable work on interruption and interruptibility in HCI, little has been done to explore how these ...
Comments