Caroline L. van Straten
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
The increasing sophistication of social robots has intensified calls for transparency about robots’ machine nature. Initial research has suggested that providing children with information about robots’ mechanical status does not alter children's humanlike perception of, and relationship formation with, social robots. Against this background, our study experimentally investigated the effects of transparency about a robot's lack of human psychological capacities (intelligence, self-consciousness, emotionality, identity construction, social cognition) on children's perceptions of a robot and their relationship to it. Our sample consisted of 144 children aged 8 to 9 years old who interacted with the Nao robot in either a transparent or a control condition. Transparency decreased children's humanlike perception of the robot in terms of animacy, anthropomorphism, social presence, and perceived similarity. Transparency reduced child-robot relationship formation in terms of decreased trust, while children's feelings of closeness toward the robot were not affected.
- American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- D. R. Ames. 2004. Inside the mind reader's toolkit: Projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87, 3 (2004), 340--353. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.340Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Bartneck, D. Kulić, E. Croft, and S. Zoghbi. 2009. Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 1 (2009), 71--81. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Bauminger-Zviely and G. Agam-Ben-Artzi. 2014. Young friendship in HFASD and typical development: Friend versus non-friend comparisons. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 44, 7 (2014), 1733--1748. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2052-7Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Belpaeme, P. Baxter, J. de Greeff, J. Kennedy, R. Read, R. Looije, and M. C. Zelati. 2013. Child-robot interaction: Perspectives and challenges. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR’13). Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 452--459. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_45Google Scholar
- C. L. Bethel and R. R. Murphy. 2010. Review of human studies methods in HRI and recommendations. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2, 4 (2010), 347--359. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0064-9Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Bhamjee, E. Griffiths and J. Palmer. 2010. Children's perception and interpretation of robots and robot behaviour. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Robot Personal Relationships (HRPR’10). Springer, Leiden, The Netherlands, 42--48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19385-9_6Google Scholar
- R. D. Benford and D. A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26, 1 (2000), 611--639. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Bernstein and K. Crowley. 2008. Searching for signs of intelligent life: An investigation of young children's beliefs about robot intelligence. J. Learn. Sci. 17, 2 (2008), 225--247. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400801986116Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Berscheid and P. Regan. 2005. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships. Pearson, NJ.Google Scholar
- M. Boden, J. Bryson, D. Caldwell, K. Dautenhahn, L. Edwards, S. Kember, and T. Sorrell. 2017. Principles of robotics: Regulating robots in the real world. Connect. Sci. 29, 2 (2017), 124--129. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09540091.2016.1271400Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Borenstein and R. Arkin. 2019. Robots, ethics, and intimacy: The need for scientific research. In On the Cognitive, Ethical, and Scientific Dimensions of Artificial Intelligence, D. Berkich and M. d'Alfonso (Eds.), Springer, 299--309. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01800-9_16Google Scholar
- K. Bumby and K. Dautenhahn. 1999. Investigating children's attitudes towards robots: A case study. In Proceedings of the Third International Cognitive Technology Conference (CT’99). Michigan: M.I.N.D. Lab, San Francisco, CA, 391--410. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f6a5/9f92b02a956856964c5778f59f03fa4ab3ce.pdf.Google Scholar
- J. N. Cappella. 1983. Conversational involvement: Approaching and avoiding others. In Nonverbal Interaction, J. M. Wiemann and R. P. Harrison (Eds.), 113--148. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
- C. M. Carpinella, A. B. Wyman, M. A. Perez, and S. J. Stroessner. 2017. The robotic social attributes scale (ROSAS): Development and validation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’17). ACM/IEEE, Vienna, Austria, 254--262. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020208Google Scholar
- M. Coeckelbergh. 2017. How to describe and evaluate “deception” phenomena: Recasting the metaphysics, ethics, and politics of ICTs in terms of magic and performance and taking a relational and narrative turn. Ethics Info. Technol. 20, 2 (2017), 71--85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9441-5Google Scholar
- E. C. Collins. 2017. Vulnerable users: Deceptive robotics. Connect. Sci. 29, 3 (2017), 223--229. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09540091.2016.1274959Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Darling. 2017. Who's Johnny? Anthropomorphic framing in human-robot interaction, integration, and policy. In Robot Ethics 2.0, P. Lin, G. Bekey, K. Abney and R. Jenkins (Eds.). Oxford University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2588669Google Scholar
- C. de Jong, R. Kühne, J. Peter, C. L. van Straten, and A. Barco. 2018. Intentional acceptance of social robots: Development and validation of a self-report measure for children. Manuscript Resubmitted for Publication.Google Scholar
- C. de Jong, P. Vogt, and E. Krahmer. 2017. Don't Be Sad, You Can Still Win Next Time, Robin! The Effect of a Social Robot's Presence on Children's Emotional Expressions after Receiving A Satisfying or Disappointing Gift. Unpublished master's thesis. Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- D. Dennett. 1988. Conditions of personhood. In What Is a Person? M. F. Goodman (Ed.), 145--167. Humana Press, Clifton, NJ.Google Scholar
- A. Edwards. 2018. Animals, humans, and machines: Interactive implications of ontological classification. In Human-Machine Communication: Rethinking Communication, Technology, and Ourselves, A. Guzman (Ed.), 29--49. Peter Lang, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- N. Epley and A. Waytz. 2010. Mind perception. In Handbook of Social Psychology, S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert and G. Lindzey (Eds.), 498--541. Wiley 8 Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- N. Epley, A. Waytz, and J. T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114, 4 (2007), 864--886. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. S. Geerdts. 2016. (Un) real animals: Anthropomorphism and early learning about animals. Child Dev. Perspect. 10, 1 (2016), 10--14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12153Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. George and M. Mallery. 2010. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.). Pearson, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- H. M. Gray, K. Gray, and D. M. Wegner. 2007. Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315, 5812 (2007), 619. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475Google Scholar
- A. G. Greenwald and M. R. Banaji. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psych. Rev. 102, 1 4--27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Haslam, Y. Kashima, S. Loughnan, J. Shi, and C. Suitner. 2008. Subhuman, inhuman, and superhuman: Contrasting humans with nonhumans in three cultures. Soc. Cogn. 26, 2 (2008), 248--258. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.248Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Heerink, B. Kröse, V. Evers, and B. Wielinga. 2010. Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The Almere model. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2, 4 (2010), 361--375. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5Google ScholarCross Ref
- C.-C. Ho and K. F. MacDorman. 2010. Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: Developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 6 (2010), 1508--1518. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.015Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. V. Hoff. 2005. Imaginary companions, creativity, and self-image in middle childhood. Creat. Res. J. 17, 2 (2005), 167--180. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj170283_4Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. P. Hubbard. 2011. “Do androids dream?” Personhood and intelligent artifacts. Temple Law Rev. 83 (2011), 405--474. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.nl/8httpsredir=18article=18568context=law_facpub. -->Google Scholar
- P. H. Kahn, H. E. Gary, and S. Shen. 2013. Children's social relationships with current and near‐future robots. Child Dev. Perspect. 7, 1 (2013), 32--37. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12011Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Kiesler, A. Powers, S. R. Fussell, and C. Torrey. 2008. Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot--like agent. Soc. Cogn. 26, 2 (2008), 169--181. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.169Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. F. Kihlstrom. 1990. The psychological unconscious. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, O. John, R. Robins, and L. Pervin (Eds.), 424--442. Guilford, New York.Google Scholar
- M. King and G. Bruner. 2000. Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychol. Market 17, 2 (2007) 9--103. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6793(200002)17:2<79::aid-mar2>3.0.co;2-0Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. M. Kory Westlund and C. Breazeal. 2016. Transparency, teleoperation, and children's understanding of social robots. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’16). ACM/IEEE, Christchurch, New Zealand, 625--626. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2016.7451888Google Scholar
- J. M. Kory Westlund, M. Martinez, M. Archie, M. Das, and C. Breazeal. 2016. Effects of framing a robot as a social agent or as a machine on children's social behavior. In Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’16). IEEE, New York, NY, 688--693. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2016.7745193Google Scholar
- R. E. Larzelere and T. L. Huston. 1980. The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. J. Marriage Fam. 42, 3 (1980), 595--604. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/351903Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. M. Lee. 2004. Presence, explicated. Commun. Theor. 14, 1 (2004), 27--50. DOI:10.1093/ct/14.1.27Google ScholarCross Ref
- I. Leite, A. Pereira, and J. F. Lehman. 2017. Persistent memory in repeated child-robot conversations. In Proceedings of the Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC’17). ACM, Stanford, CA, 238--247. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3079728Google Scholar
- J. Li. 2015. The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots, and virtual agents. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. St. 77 (2015), 23--27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.01.001Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Macintosh and C. Dissanayake. 2006. Social skills and problem behaviours in school aged children with high functioning autism and asperger's disorder. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 36, 8 (2006), 1065--1076. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0139-5Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. C. McCroskey, V. P. Richmond, and J. A. Daly. 1975. The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Hum. Commun. Res. 1, 4 (1975), 323--332. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00281.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- V. Morrow. 1998. My animals and other family: Children's perspectives on their relationships with companion animals. Anthrozoös 11, 4 (1998), 218--226. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2752/089279398787000526Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Nass and Y. Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56, 1 (2000), 81--103. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. I. Nathanson and J. Cantor. 2000. Reducing the aggression-promoting effect of violent cartoons by increasing children's fictional involvement with the victim: A study of active mediation. J. Broadcast Electron. 44, 1 (2000), 125--142. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4401_9Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. I. Nathanson, B. J. Wilson, J. McGee, and M. Sebastian. 2002. Counteracting the effects of female stereotypes on television via active mediation. J. Commun. 52, 4 (2002), 922--937. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/52.4.922Google ScholarCross Ref
- U. Neisser. 1988. Five kinds of self‐knowledge. Philos. Psychol. 1, 1 (1988), 35--59. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09515088808572924Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. L. Nowak and F. Biocca. 2003. The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence-Teleop. Virt. 12, 5 (2003), 481--494. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761289Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Pearson and J. Borenstein. 2014. Creating “companions” for children: The ethics of designing esthetic features for robots. AI Soc. 29, 1 (2014), 23--31. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-012-0431-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. F. Rosaen and J. L. Dibble. 2008. Investigating the relationships among child's age, parasocial interactions, and the social realism of favorite television characters. Commun. Res. Report 25, 2 (2008), 145--154. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090802021806Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. R. Schadenberg, M. A. Neerincx, F. Cnossen, and R. Looije. 2017. Personalising game difficulty to keep children motivated to play with a social robot: A Bayesian approach. Cogn. Syst. Res. 43 (2017), 222--231. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys. 2016.08.003Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Scheutz. 2014. The inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional bonds between humans and social robots. In Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, P. Lin, K. Abney and G. A. Bekey (Eds.), 205--221. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- R. L. Severson and S. M. Carlson. 2010. Behaving as or behaving as if? Children's conceptions of personified robots and the emergence of a new ontological category. Neural Netw. 23, 8-9 (2010), 1099--1103. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2010.08.014Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. L. Severson and K. M. Lemm. 2016. Kids see human too: Adapting an individual differences measure of anthropomorphism for a child sample. J. Cogn. Dev. 17, 1 (2016), 122--141. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2014.989445Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Sharkey and A. Sharkey. 2010. The crying shame of robot nannies: An ethical appraisal. Interact. Stud. 11, 2 (2010), 161--190. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1075/is.11.2.01shaGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- M. Sherman, M. Hertzig, R. Austrian, and T. Shapiro. 1981. Treasured objects in school-aged children. Pediatrics 68, 3 (1981), 379--386.Google Scholar
- R. J. Sternberg. 1987. Liking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of theories. Psychol. Bull. 102, 3 (1987), 331--343. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.331Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Turkle. 2007. Authenticity in the age of digital companions. Interact. Stud. 8, 3 (2007), 501--517. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1075/is.8.3.11turGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- S. Turkle. 2011. Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other. Basic Books.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Turkle, C. Breazeal, O. Dasté, and B. Scassellati. 2006. Encounters with kismet and cog: Children respond to relational artifacts. Digital Media: Transformations in Human Communication 120. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/∼sturkle/www/encounters withkismet.pdf.Google Scholar
- P. M. Valkenburg. 2014. Schermgaande Jeugd: Over Jeugd en Media. Prometheus, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- T. F. van de Mortel. 2008. Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research. Aust. J. Adv. Nurs. 25, 4 (2008), 40--48.Google Scholar
- C. L. van Straten, R. Kühne, J. Peter, C. de Jong, and A. Barco. In press. Closeness, trust, and perceived social support in child-robot relationship formation: Development and validation of three self-report scales. Interact. Stud.Google Scholar
- C. L. van Straten, J. Peter, and R. Kühne. 2019. Child-robot relationship formation: A narrative review of empirical research. Int. J. Soc. Robot. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00569-0Google Scholar
- P. Vogt, M. de Haas, C. de Jong, P. Baxter, and E. Krahmer. 2017. Child-robot interactions for second language tutoring to preschool children. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11, 73 (2017). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00073Google Scholar
- B. J. Wilson and A. J. Weiss. 1993. The effects of sibling coviewing on preschoolers' reactions to a suspenseful movie scene. Commun. Res. 20, 2 (1993), 214--248. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/009365093020002003Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Transparency about a Robot's Lack of Human Psychological Capacities: Effects on Child-Robot Perception and Relationship Formation
Recommendations
On sharing and caring: Investigating the effects of a robot's self-disclosure and question- asking on children's robot perceptions and child-robot relationship formation
AbstractAlthough scholars have focused on the role of self-disclosure in the context of child-robot interaction and relationship formation, little is known as to how the effects of a robot's self-disclosure vary by the information the robot ...
Highlights- A social robot's question-asking can increase children's trust in the robot.
- A ...
"That Robot Played with Us!" Children's Perceptions of a Robot after a Child-Robot Group Interaction
CSCWThe design of child-centred, intelligent and collaborative robots is a challenging endeavour, which requires to understand how the implemented robot behaviours and collaboration paradigms affect children's perception about the robot. This paper presents ...
The wizard and I: How transparent teleoperation and self-description (do not) affect children’s robot perceptions and child-robot relationship formation
AbstractIt has been well documented that children perceive robots as social, mental, and moral others. Studies on child-robot interaction may encourage this perception of robots, first, by using a Wizard of Oz (i.e., teleoperation) set-up and, second, by ...
Comments