Zachary Henkel
Cindy L. Bethel
ABSTRACT
The goal of this paper is to begin a discussion of the benefits, challenges, and ethical concerns related to the use of robots as intermediaries for obtaining sensitive information from children within the human-robot interaction (HRI), criminology, sociology, legal, and psychological communities. This work examines how robots may impede disclosures from children, encourage inaccurate disclosures, facilitate unintended disclosures, provide a more reliable interviewer, decrease the likelihood of misleading children, and enhance forensic interviews through high fidelity data logging. Open research questions, proposed research studies, and pathways toward deployment of robots as forensic interviewers are provided. As HRI researchers working in an interdisciplinary team, with members trained by the National Child Advocacy Center in Child Forensic Interview Protocols, we believe sustaining a dialogue concerning the design and appropriate use of robots in this area is essential for continued progress.
- A. Abbe and S. E. Brandon. The role of rapport in investigative interviewing: A review. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(3):237--249, 2013.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- J. Almerigogna, J. Ost, L. Akehurst, and M. Fluck. How interviewers' nonverbal behaviors can affect children's perceptions and suggestibility. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 100:17--39, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Anderson. The continuum of disclosure: Exploring factors predicting tentative disclosure of child sexual abuse allegations. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25(4):382--402, 2016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. L. Bethel, D. Eakin, S. Anreddy, J. K. Stuart, and D. Carruth. Eyewitnesses are misled by human but not robot interviewers. In 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pages 25--32. IEEE, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. L. Bethel, Z. Henkel, K. Stives, D. C. May, D. K. Eakin, M. Pilkinton, A. Jones, and M. Stubbs-Richardson. Using robots to interview children about bullying: Lessons learned from an exploratory study. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on, pages 712--717. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. L. Bethel, M. R. Stevenson, and B. Scassellati. Secret-sharing: Interactions between a child, robot, and adult. In Systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, pages 2489--2494. IEEE, 2011.Google Scholar
- M. M. Black and A. Ponirakis. Computer-assisted interviews with children about maltreatment: Methodological, developmental, and ethical issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(7):682--695, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Borenstein and Y. Pearson. Companion robots and the emotional development of children. Law, Innovation and Technology, 5(2):172--189, 2013.Google Scholar
- D. A. Brown and M. E. Lamb. Can children be useful witnesses? it depends how they are questioned. Child Development Perspectives, 9(4):250--255, 2015.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Ceci, A. Hritz, and C. Royer. Understanding Suggestiblity, book section 8, pages 141--153. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016.Google Scholar
- L. E. Cronch, J. L. Viljoen, and D. J. Hansen. Forensic interviewing in child sexual abuse cases: Current techniques and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11:195--207, 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. P. Cross, L. M. Jones, W. A. Walsh, M. Simone, and D. Kolko. Child forensic interviewing in children's advocacy centers: Empirical data on a practice model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31:1031--1052, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Daly. The Purpose of the Forensic Interview: A Lawyer's Perspective, book section 2, pages 19--39. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016.Google Scholar
- B. Earhart, D. LaRooy, and M. E. Lamb. Assessing the Quality of Forensic Interviews with Child Witnesses, pages 317--335. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016.Google Scholar
- K. C. Faller. Forty years of forensic interviewing of children suspected of sexual abuse, 1974--2014: Historical benchmarks. Social Sciences, 4(1):34--65, 2015.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. C. Faller. Disclosure Failures: Statistics, Characteristics, and Strategies to Address Them, book section 7, pages 123--139. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016.Google Scholar
- M. Fanetti and R. Boles. Chapter 12: Forensic Interviewing and Assessment Issues with Children, book section 12. Elsevier Science & Technology, Inc. - Credo Reference, Oxford, 2003.Google Scholar
- K. Fängström, P. Bokström, A. Dahlberg, R. Calam, S. Lucas, and A. Sarkadi. In my shoes--validation of a computer assisted approach for interviewing children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 58:160--172, 2016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. M. Fraser and G. N. Gilbert. Simulating speech systems. Computer Speech & Language, 5(1):81--99, 1991.Google ScholarCross Ref
- V. H. Fritzley, R. C. L. Lindsay, and K. Lee. Young children's response tendencies toward yes-no questions concerning actions. Child Development, 84(2):711--725, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Garven, J. M. Wood, R. S. Malpass, and J. S. Shaw, III. More than suggestion: The effect of interviewing techniques from the mcmartin preschool case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3):347--359, 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Giullian, D. Ricks, A. Atherton, M. Colton, M. Goodrich, and B. Brinton. Detailed requirements for robots in autism therapy. In Systems Man and Cybernetics (SMC), 2010 IEEE International Conference on, pages 2595--2602. IEEE, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Goris, J. Saldien, I. Vanderniepen, and D. Lefeber. The huggable robot probo, a multi-disciplinary research platform. In International Conference on Research and Education in Robotics, pages 29--41. Springer, 2008.Google Scholar
- J. N. Gribble, H. G. Miller, S. M. Rogers, and C. F. Turner. Interview mode and measurement of sexual behaviors: Methodological issues. The Journal of Sex Research, 36(1):16--24, 1999.Google ScholarCross Ref
- V. Groom, V. Srinivasan, C. L. Bethel, R. Murphy, L. Dole, and C. Nass. Responses to robot social roles and social role framing. In Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS), 2011 International Conference on, pages 194--203. IEEE, 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Heisler. Child maltreatment 2014 - 25th year of reporting, 2014.Google Scholar
- J. L. Johnson, K. McWilliams, G. S. Goodman, A. E. Shelley, and B. Piper. Basic Principles of Interviewing the Child Eyewitness, book section 10, pages 179--195. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016.Google Scholar
- M. L. Jones and K. Meurer. Can (and should) hello barbie keep a secret? In Ethics in Engineering, Science and Technology (ETHICS), 2016 IEEE International Symposium on, pages 1--6. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Kanda and H. Ishiguro. Human-Robot Interaction in Social Robotics. CRC Press, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. F. Kelley. An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 2(1):26--41, 1984. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Komatsubara, M. Shiomi, T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, and N. Hagita. Can a social robot help children's understanding of science in classrooms? In Proceedings of the second international conference on Human-agent interaction, pages 83--90. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Kory Westlund and C. Breazeal. Transparency, teleoperation, and children's understanding of social robots. In The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interation, pages 625--626. IEEE Press, 2016. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Krueger. Forensic Interviewing and Charging: A Prosecutor's Perspective, book section 4, pages 57--79. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016.Google Scholar
- M. Kyriakidou. Discussing robot crime interviewers for children's forensic testimonies: a relatively new field for investigation. AI & SOCIETY, 31(1):121--126, 2016. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. E. Lamb and M. E. Garretson. The effects of interviewer gender and child gender on the informativeness of alleged child sexual abuse victims in forensic interviews. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2):157, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, I. Hershkowitz, P. W. Esplin, and D. Horowitz. A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the nichd investigative interview protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31:1201--1231, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Laney and E. F. Loftus. History of Forensic Interviewing, book section 1, pages 1--17. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016.Google Scholar
- D. Leyzberg, S. Spaulding, and B. Scassellati. Personalizing robot tutors to individuals' learning differences. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, pages 423--430. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. O. Lilienfeld. Forensic Interviewing for Child Sexual Abuse: Why Psychometrics Matters, book section 9, pages 155--178. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016.Google Scholar
- G. M. Lucas, J. Gratch, A. King, and L.-P. Morency. It's only a computer: Virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Computers in Human Behavior, 37:94--100, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. G. Millstein and C. E. Irwin. Acceptability of computer-acquired sexual histories in adolescent girls. Journal of Paediatrics, 103:815--819, 1983.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Newlin, L. C. Steele, A. Chamberlin, J. Anderson, J. Kenniston, A. Russell, H. Stewart, and V. Vaughan-Eden. Child forensic interviewing: Best practices, 2015.Google Scholar
- B. S. Newman, P. L. Dannenfelser, and D. Pendleton. Child abuse investigations: Reasons for using child advocacy centers and suggestions for improvement. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 22(2):165--181, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Orbach, I. Hershkowitz, M. E. Lamb, K. J. Sternberg, P. W. Esplin, and D. Horowitz. Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic interviews of alleged child abuse victims. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(6):733--752, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. M. Paperny, J. Y. Aono, R. M. Lehman, S. L. Hammar, and J. Risser. Computer-assisted detection and intervention in adolescent high-risk health behaviors. Journal of Paediatrics, 116:456--462, 1990.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Peterson, C. Dowden, and J. Tobin. Interviewing preschoolers: Comparisons of yes/no and wh- questions. Law and Human Behavior, 23(5):539--555, 1999.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Peyton. A litigator's guide to the internet of things. Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, 22(3):9, 2016.Google Scholar
- A. Powers, S. Kiesler, S. Fussell, and C. Torrey. Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI2007), pages 145--152. IEEE, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. A. Price, E. C. Ahern, and M. E. Lamb. Rapport-building in investigative interviews of alleged child sexual abuse victims. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2016.Google Scholar
- K. M. Quinn, S. White, and G. Santilli. Influences of an interviewer's behaviors in child sexual abuse investigations. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 17(1):45--52, 1989.Google Scholar
- B. Reeves and C. Nass. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. D. Riek. Wizard of oz studies in hri: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1), 2012.Google Scholar
- L. D. Riek and D. Howard. A code of ethics for the human-robot interaction profession. Proceedings of We Robot, 2014.Google Scholar
- B. Robins, K. Dautenhahn, R. Te Boekhorst, and A. Billard. Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(2):105--120, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Rohrabaugh, K. London, and A. K. Hall. Planning the Forensic Interview, book section 11, pages 197--218. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016.Google Scholar
- R. Ros, M. Nalin, R. Wood, P. Baxter, R. Looije, Y. Demiris, T. Belpaeme, A. Giusti, and C. Pozzi. Child-robot interaction in the wild: advice to the aspiring experimenter. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on multimodal interfaces, pages 335--342. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Rosenthal. State of new jersey v. margaret kelly michaels: An overview. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(2):246--271, 1995.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Saerbeck, T. Schut, C. Bartneck, and M. D. Janse. Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1613--1622. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Saldien, K. Goris, S. Yilmazyildiz, W. Verhelst, and D. Lefeber. On the design of the huggable robot probo. Journal of Physical Agents, 2(2):3--12, 2008.Google Scholar
- K. Saywitz and L. Camparo. Contemporary Child Forensic Interviewing: Evolving Consensus and Innovation Over 25 Years, book section 6, pages 102--127. The Guilford Press, New York, NY, 2009.Google Scholar
- K. J. Saywitz, T. D. Lyon, and G. S. Goodman. Interviewing Children, pages 337--360. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA, 3rd edition, 2011.Google Scholar
- B. Scassellati, H. Admoni, and M. Mataric. Robots for use in autism research. Annual review of biomedical engineering, 14:275--294, 2012.Google Scholar
- A. Sharkey and N. Sharkey. Children, the elderly, and interactive robots. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 18(1):32--38, 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Shim and R. C. Arkin. A taxonomy of robot deception and its benefits in hri. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pages 2328--2335. IEEE, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Tannen. What's in a frame? surface evidence for underlying expectations. Framing in discourse, 14:56, 1993.Google Scholar
- D. Tannen and C. Wallat. Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. Social psychology quarterly, pages 205--216, 1987.Google Scholar
- E. Taylor and K. Michael. Smart toys that are the stuff of nightmares {editorial}. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 35(1):8--10, 2016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. S. Teoh and M. E. Lamb. Interviewer demeanor in forensic interviews of children. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 19(2):145--159, 2013.Google Scholar
- P. Toth, J.D. Child forensic interviews: Differences, debates, and best practices, September 2011.Google Scholar
- A. van Straten, P. Cuijpers, and N. Smits. Effectiveness of a web-based self-help intervention for symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress: randomized controlled trial. Journal of medical Internet research, 10(1):e7, 2008.Google Scholar
- N. E. Walker. Forensic interviews of children: The components of scientific validity and legal admissibility. Law and Contemporary Problems, 65(1):149--178, 2002.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. K. Westlund and C. Breazeal. Deception, secrets, children, and robots: What's acceptable? In Workshop on The Emerging Policy and Ethics of Human-Robot Interaction, held in conjunction with the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2015.Google Scholar
- J. M. K. Westlund, M. Martinez, M. Archie, M. Das, and C. Breazeal. Effects of framing a robot as a social agent or as a machine on children's social behavior. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on, pages 688--693. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. J. Wood, K. Dautenhahn, H. Lehmann, B. Robins, A. Rainer, and D. S. Syrdal. Robot-mediated interviews: Do robots possess advantages over human interviewers when talking to children with special needs?, October 27--29 2013.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. J. Wood, K. Dautenhahn, A. Rainer, B. Robins, H. Lehmann, and D. S. Syrdal. Humanoid robot as a tool for interviewing young children? PLoS ONE, 8(3):1--13, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- A Robot Forensic Interviewer: The BAD, the GOOD, and the Undiscovered
Recommendations
Discussing robot crime interviewers for children's forensic testimonies: a relatively new field for investigation
The aim of this paper was to provide a background review to assist experimental, survey and field studies that will start emerging on the effects of robot crime interviewers on children and on forensic investigations. The paper captures topics such as ...
Transparency, Teleoperation, and Children's Understanding of Social Robots
HRI '16: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot InteractionTeleoperation or Wizard-of-Oz control of social robots is commonly used in human-robot interaction (HRI) research. This is especially true for child-robot interactions, where technologies like speech recognition (which can help create autonomous ...
"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 ...
Comments