Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empathic Robots for Long-term Interaction

Evaluating Social Presence, Engagement and Perceived Support in Children

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As a great number of robotic products are entering people’s lives, the question of how can they behave in order to sustain long-term interactions with users becomes increasingly more relevant. In this paper, we present an empathic model for social robots that aim to interact with children for extended periods of time. The application of this model to a scenario where a social robot plays chess with children is described. To evaluate the proposed model, we conducted a long-term study in an elementary school and measured children’s perception of social presence, engagement and social support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Belpaeme T, Baxter PE, Read R, Wood R, Cuayáhuitl H, Kiefer B, Racioppa S, Kruijff-Korbayová I, Athanasopoulos G, Enescu V et al (2012) Multimodal child-robot interaction: building social bonds. J Hum–Robot Interact 1(2):33–53

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bickmore T, Picard R (2005) Establishing and maintaining long-term human–computer relationships. ACM Trans Comput–Hum Interact 12(2):327

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bickmore T, Schulman D, Yin L (2010) Maintaining engagement in long-term interventions with relational agents. Appl Artif Intell 24(6):648–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Biocca F (1997) The cyborg’s dilemma: Embodiment in virtual environments. In: Cognitive Technology, 1997’.Humanizing the Information Age’. Proceedings., Second International Conference on, IEEE. pp. 12–26

  5. Breazeal C (2009) Role of expressive behaviour for robots that learn from people. Philos Trans R Soc B 364(1535):3527–3538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Castellano G, Leite I, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A, McOwan PW (2013) Multimodal affect modeling and recognition for empathic robot companions. Int J Hum Robotics 10(1)

  7. Ceci S, Bruck M (1993) Suggestibility of the child witness: a historical review and synthesis. Psychol bull 113(3):403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chi M (1997) Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. J Learn Sci 6(3):271–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cramer H, Goddijn J, Wielinga B, Evers V (2010) Effects of (in)accurate empathy and situational valence on attitudes towards robots. ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, ACM, pp 141–142

  10. Cutrona C, Suhr J, MacFarlane R (1990) Interpersonal transactions and the psychological sense of support. Personal relationships and social support pp. 30–45

  11. Eisenberg N, Fabes RA (1990) Empathy: conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motiv Emot 14:131–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fogg B, Nass C (1997) Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter. J Hum–Comput Stud 46(5):551–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gonsior B, Sosnowski S, Mayer C, Blume J, Radig B, Wollherr D, Kuhnlenz K (2011) Improving aspects of empathy and subjective performance for hri through mirroring facial expressions. In: RO-MAN, 2011 IEEE, pp. 350–356. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2011.6005294

  14. Gordon A (2011) Assessing social support in children: development and initial validation of the social support questionnaire for children. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Houston

  15. Heerink M, Kröse BJA, Evers V, Wielinga BJ (2009) Influence of social presence on acceptance of an assistive social robot and screen agent by elderly users. Adv Robotics 23(14):1909–1923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Heeter C (1992) Being there: the subjective experience of presence. Presence 1(2):262–271

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hoffman M (2001) Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kahn PH Jr, Friedman B, Perez-Granados DR, Freier NG (2006) Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children. Interact Stud 7(3):405–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2004) Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Hum–Comput Interact 19(1):61–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N, Ishiguro H (2007) A 2-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robotics 23(5):962–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kozima H, Michalowski M, Nakagawa C (2009) A playful robot for research, therapy, and entertainment. Int J Soc Robot 1:3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee K, Nass C (2005) Social-psychological origins of feelings of presence: creating social presence with machine-generated voices. Media Psychol 7(1):31–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2012) Modelling empathic behaviour in a robotic game companion for children: an ethnographic study in real-world settings. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’12, pp. 367–374. ACM, New York, NY, USA. doi:10.1145/2157689.2157811. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2157689.2157811

  24. Leite I, Martinho C, Paiva A (2013) Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey. Int J Social Robotics 5(2):291–308. doi:10.1007/s12369-013-0178-y. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0178-y

    Google Scholar 

  25. Leite I, Martinho C, Pereira A, Paiva A (2009) As time goes by: long-term evaluation of social presence in robotic companions. In: Robot and human interactive communication, 2009. RO-MAN 2009, IEEE. pp. 669–674

  26. Leite I, Martinho C, Pereira A, Paiva A (2009) As time goes by: Long-term evaluation of social presence in robotic companions. In: Robot and human interactive communication, 2009. RO-MAN 2009. The 18th IEEE international symposium on, pp. 669–674. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326256

  27. Leite I, Pereira A, Castellano G, Mascarenhas S, Martinho C, Paiva A (2011) Modelling empathy in social robotic companions. In: L. Ardissono, T. Kuflik (eds.) UMAP Workshops, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, vol. 7138, pp. 135–147

  28. Leite I, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2008) Are emotional robots more fun to play with? Robot Hum Interact Commun 2008: 77–82

  29. Leite I, Pereira A, Mascarenhas S, Martinho C, Prada R, Paiva A (2013) The influence of empathy in humanrobot relations. Int J Hum–Comput Stud 71(3):250–260. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Martinho C, Paiva A (2006) Using anticipation to create believable behaviour. In: Proceedings of the 21st national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1, pp. 175–180. AAAI Press

  31. Mendelson MJ, Aboud FE (1999) Measuring friendship quality in late adolescents and young adults: Mcgill friendship questionnaires. Canad J Behav Sci 31(1):130–132. doi:10.1037/h0087080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Read JC, MacFarlane S (2006) Using the fun toolkit and other survey methods to gather opinions in child computer interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Interaction design and children, IDC ’06, pp. 81–88. ACM, New York, NY, USA. doi:10.1145/1139073.1139096

  33. Riek LD, Paul PC, Robinson P (2010) When my robot smiles at me: enabling human–robot rapport via real-time head gesture mimicry. J Multimodal User Interfaces 3(1–2):99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Saerbeck M, Schut T, Bartneck C, Janse M (2010) Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In: Proceedings of CHI 2010, ACM. pp. 1613–1622

  35. Scherer K (2000) Psychological models of emotion. The neuropsychology of emotion

  36. Schermerhorn P, Scheutz M, Crowell C (2008), Robot social presence and gender: Do females view robots differently than males? In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot, interaction, pp. 263–270. ACM

  37. Scullin MH, Ceci SJ (2001) A suggestibility scale for children. Pers Individ Differ 30(5):843–856. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00077-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sidner C, Kidd C, Lee C, Lesh N (2004) Where to look: a study of human–robot engagement. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pp. 78–84. ACM

  39. Tanaka F, Cicourel A, Movellan J (2007) Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(46):17954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Vigil J, Geary D (2008) A preliminary investigation of family coping styles and psychological well-being among adolescent survivors of hurricane katrina. J Fam Psychol 22(1):176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wada K, Shibata T, Saito T, Sakamoto K, Tanie K (2005) Psychological and social effects of one year robot assisted activity on elderly people at a health service facility for the aged. In: Robotics and Automation, 2005. ICRA 2005. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 2785–2790. IEEE

  42. Wellek S (2003) Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to all the staff and study participants from Escola 31 de Janeiro in Parede, where the long-term experiment was conducted. This research was supported by EU \(7{\mathrm{th}}\) FP under grant agreement no. 317923, and by national funds through FCT-Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, under project PEst-OE/EEI/LA0021/2011, the PIDDAC Program funds. The authors are solely responsible for the content of this publication. It does not represent the opinion of the EC, and the EC is not responsible for any use that might be made of data appearing therein.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INESC-ID and Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Oeiras, Portugal

    Iolanda Leite, André Pereira, Carlos Martinho & Ana Paiva

  2. HCI Centre, School of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

    Ginevra Castellano

Authors
  1. Iolanda Leite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ginevra Castellano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. André Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carlos Martinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ana Paiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iolanda Leite.

Appendix: Questionnaire Items

Appendix: Questionnaire Items

1.1 Engagement

  1. 1.

    iCat made me participate more in the game.

  2. 2.

    It was fun playing with iCat.

  3. 3.

    Playing with iCat caused me real feelings and emotions.

  4. 4.

    I lost track of time while playing with iCat.

1.2 Social Presence

  1. 1.

    I noticed iCat. (Co-presence)

  2. 2.

    iCat noticed me. (Co-presence)

  3. 3.

    I remained focused on iCat. (Attentional Allocation)

  4. 4.

    iCat remained focused on me. (Attentional Allocation)

  5. 5.

    My thoughts were clear to iCat. (Perceived Message Understanding)

  6. 6.

    iCat’s thoughts were clear to me. (Perceived Message Understanding)

  7. 7.

    I could tell how iCat felt. (Perceived Affective Understanding)

  8. 8.

    iCat could tell how I felt. (Perceived Affective Understanding)

  9. 9.

    iCat was influenced by my mood. (Perceived Affective Interdependence)

  10. 10.

    I was influenced by iCat’s mood. (Perceived Affective Interdependence)

  11. 11.

    iCat’s behaviour was tied to mine. (Perceived Behavioural Interdependence)

  12. 12.

    My behaviour was tied to iCat’s behaviour. (Perceived Behavioural Interdependence)

1.3 Perceived Support

  1. 1.

    iCat helped me during the game. (Help)

  2. 2.

    iCat’s comments were useful to me. (Help)

  3. 3.

    iCat’s comments were helpful when I needed them. (Help)

  4. 4.

    I felt that I could play better in the presence of iCat. (Self-Validation)

  5. 5.

    iCat praised me when I played well. (Self-Validation)

  6. 6.

    iCat comforts me when I am upset. (Social Support)

  7. 7.

    iCat cares about me. (Social Support)

  8. 8.

    iCat gives me good advice. (Social Support)

  9. 9.

    iCat accepts me for who I am. (Social Support)

  10. 10.

    iCat supports my decisions. (Social Support)

  11. 11.

    I can count on iCat. (Social Support)

  12. 12.

    iCat encourages me. (Social Support)

  13. 13.

    iCat understands me. (Social Support)

  14. 14.

    iCat praises me when I’ve done something well. (Social Support)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leite, I., Castellano, G., Pereira, A. et al. Empathic Robots for Long-term Interaction. Int J of Soc Robotics 6, 329–341 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0227-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0227-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation