Ela Liberman-Pincu
Oliver Korn
Tal Oron-Gilad
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Socially assistive robots (SARs) are becoming more prevalent in everyday life, emphasizing the need to make them socially acceptable and aligned with users' expectations. Robots' appearance impacts users' behaviors and attitudes towards them. Therefore, product designers choose visual qualities to give the robot a character and to imply its functionality and personality. In this work, we sought to investigate the effect of cultural differences on Israeli and German designers' perceptions of SARs' roles and appearance in four different contexts: a service robot for an assisted living/retirement residence facility, a medical assistant robot for a hospital environment, a COVID-19 officer robot, and a personal assistant robot for domestic use. The key insight is that although Israeli and German designers share similar perceptions of visual qualities for most of the robotics roles, we found differences in the perception of the COVID-19 officer robot's role and, by that, its most suitable visual design. This work indicates that context and culture play a role in users' perceptions and expectations; therefore, they should be taken into account when designing new SARs for diverse contexts.
- Kodate, N., Donnelly, S., Suwa, S., Tsujimura, M., Kitinoja, H., Hallila, J., Toivonen, M., Ide, H., & Yu, W. (2021). Home-care robots – Attitudes and perceptions among older people, carers and care professionals in Ireland: A questionnaire study. Health and Social Care in the Community. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13327Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Chita-Tegmark, M., & Scheutz, M. (2021). Assistive robots for the social management of health: a framework for robot design and human–robot interaction research. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(2), 197-217.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zachiotis, G. A., Andrikopoulos, G., Gornez, R., Nakamura, K., & Nikolakopoulos, G. (2018, December). A survey on the application trends of home service robotics. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) (pp. 1999-2006). IEEE.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Prescott, T. J., & Robillard, J. M. (2021). Are friends electric? The benefits and risks of human-robot relationships. Iscience, 24(1), 101993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Liberman-Pincu, E., van Grondelle, E. D., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2023, January). Designing Robots with the Context in Mind-One Design Does Not Fit All. In Human-Friendly Robotics 2022: HFR: 15th International Workshop on Human-Friendly Robotics (pp. 105-119). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
- Caudwell, C., Lacey, C., & Sandoval, E. B. (2019, December). The (Ir) relevance of Robot Cuteness: An Exploratory Study of Emotionally Durable Robot Design. In Proceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction (pp. 64-72).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Onnasch, L., & Roesler, E. (2020). A Taxonomy to Structure and Analyze Human–Robot Interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1-17.Google Scholar
- Saunderson, S., & Nejat, G. (2019). How robots influence humans: A survey of nonverbal communication in social human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(4), 575-608.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sandoval, E. B., Brown, S., & Velonaki, M. (2018, December). How the inclusion of design principles contribute to the development of social robots. In Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 535-538).Google Scholar
- Hoffman, G. (2019). Anki, Jibo, and Kuri: What We Can Learn from Social Robots That Didn't Make It. IEEE Spectrum.Google Scholar
- Korn, O. (Ed.). (2019). Social robots: technological, societal and ethical aspects of human-robot interaction. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lazar, A., Thompson, H. J., Piper, A. M., & Demiris, G. (2016, June). Rethinking the design of robotic pets for older adults. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 1034-1046).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wu, Y.H., Fassert, C. and Rigaud, A.S., 2012. Designing robots for the elderly: appearance issue and beyond. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 54(1), pp.121-126.Google Scholar
- von der Pütten, A., & Krämer, N. (2012, March). A survey on robot appearances. In 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 267-268). IEEE.Google Scholar
- Reeves, B., & Hancock, J. (2020). Social robots are like real people: First impressions, attributes, and stereotyping of social robots. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 1(1).Google Scholar
- Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T. L., & Rogers, W. A. (2011). Understanding robot acceptance. Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Lohse, M., Hegel, F., Swadzba, A., Rohlfing, K., Wachsmuth, S., & Wrede, B. (2007, February). What can I do for you? Appearance and application of robots. In Proceedings of AISB (Vol. 7, pp. 121-126).Google Scholar
- Li, D., Rau, P. L., & Li, Y. (2010). A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(2), 175-186.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Trovato, G., Cuellar, F., & Nishimura, M. (2016, November). Introducing 'theomorphic robots'. In 2016 IEEE-RAS 16th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids) (pp. 1245-1250). IEEE.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Broadbent, E., Kumar, V., Li, X., Sollers 3rd, J., Stafford, R. Q., MacDonald, B. A., & Wegner, D. M. (2013). Robots with display screens: a robot with a more human-like face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PloS one, 8(8), e72589.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bartneck, C., & Forlizzi, J. 2004. A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN'04). IEEE, 591–594.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design studies, 25(6), 547-577.Google Scholar
- Perez Mata, M., Ahmed-Kristensen, S., Brockhoff, P. B., & Yanagisawa, H. (2017). Investigating the influence of product perception and geometric features. Research in Engineering Design, 28, 357-379.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hekkert, P. P. M., & Van Dijk, M. B. (2011). Vision in design-A guidebook for innovators. BIS publishers.Google Scholar
- Khalaj, J., & Pedgley, O. (2019). A semantic discontinuity detection (SDD) method for comparing designers' product expressions with users' product impressions. Design Studies, 62, 36-67.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Liberman-Pincu, E., David, A., Sarne-Fleischmann, V., Edan, Y., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2021). with Me: Using Design Manipulations to Affect Human–Robot Interaction in a COVID-19 Officer Robot Use Case. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 5(11), 71.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ringwald, M., Theben, P., Gerlinger, K., Hedrich, A., & Klein, B. (2023). How Should Your Assistive Robot Look Like? A Scoping Review on Embodiment for Assistive Robots. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 107(1), 12.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., & Powers, A. (2003, November). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003. (pp. 55-60). Ieee.Google Scholar
- de Graaf, M.M.A., Ben Allouch, S.: The evaluation of different roles for domestic social robots. In: 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp. 676–681 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2015.73335948.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Liberman-Pincu, E., Parmet, Y., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2022). Judging a socially assistive robot (SAR) by its cover; The effect of body structure, outline, and color on users' perception. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction.Google Scholar
- Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Vol. 2). New York: Mcgraw-hill.Google Scholar
- Korn, O., Akalin, N., & Gouveia, R. (2021). Understanding cultural preferences for social robots: a study in German and Arab communities. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 10(2), 1-19.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lim, V., Rooksby, M., & Cross, E. S. (2021). Social robots on a global stage: establishing a role for culture during human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(6), 1307-1333.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A. M., & Krämer, N. C. (2015). Individuals' evaluations of and attitudes towards potentially uncanny robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 799-824.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Haring, K. S., Silvera-Tawil, D., Matsumoto, Y., Velonaki, M., & Watanabe, K. (2014). Perception of an android robot in Japan and Australia: A cross-cultural comparison. In Social Robotics: 6th International Conference, ICSR 2014, Sydney, NSW, Australia, October 27-29, 2014. Proceedings 6 (pp. 166-175). Springer International Publishing.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Li, D., Rau, P. P., & Li, Y. (2010). A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2, 175-186.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Evers, V., Maldonado, H. C., Brodecki, T. L., & Hinds, P. J. (2008, March). Relational vs. group self-construal: Untangling the role of national culture in HRI. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction (pp. 255-262).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rau PP, Li Y, Li D (2009) Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Comput Hum Behav 25:587–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.025Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bartneck, C., Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kato, K. (2005). Cultural differences in attitudes towards robots. AISB.Google Scholar
- Šabanović, S. (2014). Inventing Japan's 'robotics culture': The repeated assembly of science, technology, and culture in social robotics. Social Studies of Science, 44(3), 342–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713509704Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bruno, B., Chong, N. Y., Kamide, H., Kanoria, S., Lee, J., Lim, Y., … & Sgorbissa, A. (2017, August). Paving the way for culturally competent robots: A position paper. In 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 553-560). IEEE.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrist, S., Ziadee, M., Boukaram, H., Mutlu, B., & Sakr, M. (2015, March). Effects of culture on the credibility of robot speech: A comparison between English and Arabic. In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 157-164).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Syrdal, D. S., Nomura, T., Hirai, H., & Dautenhahn, K. (2011). Examining the Frankenstein syndrome: an open-ended cross-cultural survey. In Social Robotics: Third International Conference, ICSR 2011, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, November 24-25, 2011. Proceedings 3 (pp. 125-134). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Haring, K. S., Mougenot, C., Ono, F., & Watanabe, K. (2014). Cultural differences in perception and attitude towards robots. International Journal of Affective Engineering, 13(3), 149-157.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bartneck, C. (2008, August). Who like androids more: Japanese or US Americans?. In RO-MAN 2008-The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 553-557). IEEE.Google Scholar
- Nomura, T. T., Syrdal, D. S., & Dautenhahn, K. (2015). Differences on social acceptance of humanoid robots between Japan and the UK. In Procs 4th int symposium on new frontiers in human-robot interaction. The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (AISB).Google Scholar
- Lee, H. R., & Sabanović, S. (2014, March). Culturally variable preferences for robot design and use in South Korea, Turkey, and the United States. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (pp. 17-24).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lee, H. R., Sung, J., Šabanović, S., & Han, J. (2012, September). Cultural design of domestic robots: A study of user expectations in Korea and the United States. In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 803-808). IEEE.Google Scholar
- Jordan, P. W. (2000, July). Aesthetics and cultural differences. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 44, No. 32, pp. 6-77). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Razzaghi, M., Ramirez Jr, M., & Zehner, R. (2009). Cultural patterns in product design ideas: comparisons between Australian and Iranian student concepts. Design Studies, 30(4), 438-461.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Popovic, V. (2004). Expertise development in product design—strategic and domain-specific knowledge connections. Design Studies, 25(5), 527-545.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Korn, O. (2022). Gamification in industrial production: An overview, best practices, and design recommendations. Human-Technology Interaction: Shaping the Future of Industrial User Interfaces, 251-270.Google Scholar
- You, H. C., & Chen, K. (2007). Applications of affordance and semantics in product design. Design Studies, 28(1), 23-38.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hsiao, S. W., & Wang, H. P. (1998). Applying the semantic transformation method to product form design. Design studies, 19(3), 309-330.Google Scholar
- Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International journal of social robotics, 1(1), 71-81. 49.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Carpinella, C. M., Wyman, A. B., Perez, M. A., & Stroessner, S. J. (2017, March). The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS) Development and Validation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 254-262). 50.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kalegina, A., Schroeder, G., Allchin, A., Berlin, K., & Cakmak, M. (2018, February). Characterizing the design space of rendered robot faces. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 96-104).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Liberman-Pincu, E., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2022, March). Exploring the effect of mass customization on user acceptance of socially assistive robots (SARs). In 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 880-884). IEEE.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Liberman-Pincu, E., Bulgaro, A., Oron-Gilad, T. (2023). I Am in Love with the Shape of You: The Effect of Mass Customization on the Human-Robot Relationship. In: da Silva, H.P., Cipresso, P. (eds) Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications. CHIRA 2023. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1997. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49368-3_1Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jones, R. A. (2017). What makes a robot 'social'?. Social studies of science, 47(4), 556-579.Google Scholar
Recommendations
Studying Socially Assistive Robots in Their Organizational Context: Studies with PARO in a Nursing Home
HRI'15 Extended Abstracts: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended AbstractsWe explore human-robot interaction (HRI) with socially assistive robots within a broader social context instead of one-on-one interaction.. In this paper, we describe two in situ studies of the socially assistive robot PARO in a local nursing home -- ...
Evaluation of Human Robot Interaction Factors of a Socially Assistive Robot Together with Older People
CISIS '12: Proceedings of the 2012 Sixth International Conference on Complex, Intelligent, and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS)This paper describes the evaluation of human-robot-interaction (HRI) related to the future use of a humanoid robotic system as interface in intelligent home environments. The core motivation was to enhance the user interaction between smart home systems ...
Meal-time with a socially assistive robot and older adults at a long-term care facility
Special Issue on HRI System StudiesAs people get older, their ability to perform basic self-maintenance activities can be diminished due to the prevalence of cognitive and physical impairments or as a result of social isolation. The objective of our work is to design socially assistive ...
Comments