skip to main content
10.1145/3371382.3378348acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Robot Morphology and Children's Perception of Social Robots: An Exploratory Study

Published:01 April 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to investigate whether robot morphology (i.e., anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, or caricatured) influences children's perceptions of animacy, anthropomorphism, social presence, and perceived similarity. Based on a sample of 35 children aged seven to fourteen, we found that, depending on the robot's morphology, children's perceptions of anthropomorphism, social presence and perceived similarity varied, with the anthropomorphic robot typically ranking higher than the zoomorphic robot. Our findings suggest that the morphology of social robots should be taken into account when planning, analyzing, and interpreting studies on child-robot interaction.

References

  1. KPMG. 2016. Social Robots: 2016's New Breed of Social Robots Is Ready to Enter Your World. KPMG Advisory N.V, Arnhem.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Terrence Fong, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2003. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and autonomous systems 42.3--4, pp. 143--166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921--8890(02)00372-XGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Christoph Bartneck, Takayuki Kanda, Omar Mubin, and Abdullah Al Mahmud. 2009. Does the design of a robot influence its animacy and perceived intelligence? International Journal of Social Robotics 1, no. 2, pp. 195--204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0013--7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Tracy L. Sanders, William Volante, Kimberly Stowers, Theresa Kessler, Katharina Gabracht, Brandon Harpold, Paul Oppold, and Peter A. Hancock. 2015. The influence of robot form on trust. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 1510--1514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591327Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Robert A Paauwe, Johan F. Hoorn, Elly A. Konijn, and David V. Keyson. 2015. Designing robot embodiments for social interaction: affordances topple realism and aesthetics. International Journal of Social Robotics 7, no. 5, pp. 697--708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0301--3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Marta Díaz Boladeras, Neus Nuño Bermudez, Joan Sàez Pons, Diego Esteban Pardo Ayala, Cecilio Angulo Bahón, and Amara Andrés. 2011. Building up child-robot relationship: From initial attraction towards long-term social engagement. In Human Robot Interaction ('11). Workshop on expectations in intuitive human-robot interaction, pp. 17--22. 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/FG.2011.5771375Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ching-Ching Cheng, Kuo-Hung Huang, and Siang-Mei Huang. 2017. Exploring young children's images on robots. Advances in Mechanical Engineering 9, no. 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814017698663Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sarah Woods. 2006. Exploring the design space of robots: Children's perspectives. Interacting with Computers 18, no. 6, pp. 1390--1418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2006.05.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Fang-Wu Tung. 2016. Child perception of humanoid robot appearance and behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 32, no. 6, pp. 493--502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1172808Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Jérôme Dinet, and Robin Vivian. 2014. Exploratory investigation of attitudes towards assistive robots for future users. Le travail humain 77, no. 2, pp. 105--125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/th.772.0105Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Masahiro Shiomi, Kasumi Abe, Yachao Pei, Narumitsu Ikeda, and Takayuki Nagai. "I'm Scared: Little Children Reject Robots." In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Human Agent Interaction, pp. 245--247. ACM, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2974804.2980493Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Caroline L. van Straten, Jochen Peter, and Rinaldo Kühne. 2019. Child--Robot Relationship Formation: A Narrative Review of Empirical Research. International Journal of Social Robotics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00569-0Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiara de Jong, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kühne, and Alex Barco. 2019. Children's acceptance of social robots: A narrative review of the research 2000--2017. Interaction Studies 20, no. 3, pp. 393--425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18071.jonGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Chiara de Jong, Rinaldo Kühne, Jochen Peter, Caroline L. van Straten, and Alex Barco. (in press). What do children want from a social robot? Toward gratifications measures for child-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Caroline L. van Straten, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kühne, and Alex Barco. (in press). Transparency about a robot's lack of human psychological capacities: Effects on child-robot perception and relationship formation. Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiara de Jong, Caroline van Straten, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kühne, and Alex Barco. 2018. Children and social robots: Inventory of measures for CRI research. In IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO), pp. 44--45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO.2018.8625764Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Caroline L. van Straten, Rinaldo Kühne, Jochen Peter, Chiara de Jong, and Alex Barco. (in press). Closeness, trust, and perceived social support in child-robot relationship formation: Development and validation of three self-report scales. Interaction Studies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Rachel L. Severson, and Kristi M. Lemm. 2016. Kids see human too: Adapting an individual differences measure of anthropomorphism for a child sample. Journal of Cognition and Development 17, no. 1, pp. 122--141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2014.989445Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Chin-Chang Ho, and Karl F. MacDorman. 2010. Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: Developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Computers in Human Behavior 26, no. 6, pp. 1508--1518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.015Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Marcel Heerink, Ben Kröse, Vanessa Evers, and Bob Wielinga. 2010. Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics 2, no. 4, pp. 361--375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068--5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. James C., McCroskey, Virginia P. Richmond, and John A. Daly. 1975. The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research 1, no. 4, pp. 323--332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468--2958.1975.tb00281.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Robot Morphology and Children's Perception of Social Robots: An Exploratory Study

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          HRI '20: Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
          March 2020
          702 pages
          ISBN:9781450370578
          DOI:10.1145/3371382

          Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 April 2020

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • abstract

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate192of519submissions,37%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader