What is in three words? Exploring a three-word methodology for assessing impressions of a social robot encounter online and in real life

References

[1] S. Kriz, T. D. Ferro, P. Damera, J. R. Porter, Fictional robots as a data source in HRI research: Exploring the link between science fiction and interactional expectations, In: 19th International Symposium in Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2010, 458–46310.1109/ROMAN.2010.5598620Search in Google Scholar

[2] L. P. Naumann, S. Vazire, P. J. Rentfrow, S. D. Gosling, Personality judgments based on physical appearance, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2009, 35(12), 1661–167110.1177/0146167209346309Search in Google Scholar

[3] A. Todorov, Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes, Science, 2005, 308(5728), 1623–162610.1126/science.1110589Search in Google Scholar

[4] K. E. Weick, Sensemaking in Organizations (Foundations for Organizational Science), SAGE Publications, 1995, 3Search in Google Scholar

[5] M. Bar, M. Neta, H. Linz, Very first impressions, Emotion, 2006, 6(2), 269–27810.1037/1528-3542.6.2.269Search in Google Scholar

[6] C. Y. Olivola, F. Funk, A. Todorov, Social attributions from faces bias human choices, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2014, 18(11), 566–57010.1016/j.tics.2014.09.007Search in Google Scholar

[7] H. D. Flowe, J. E. Humphries, An examination of criminal face bias in a random sample of police lineups, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2011, 25(2), 265–27310.1002/acp.1673Search in Google Scholar

[8] M. Blow, K. Dautenhahn, A. Appleby, C. L. Nehaniv, D. Lee, The Art of Designing Robot Faces – Dimensions for Human-Robot Interaction, In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2006), 2006, 331–33210.1145/1121241.1121301Search in Google Scholar

[9] K. Bergmann, F. Eyssel, S. Kopp, A second chance to make a first impression? How appearance and nonverbal behavior affect perceived warmth and competence of virtual agents over time, In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA’12), 2012, 126–13810.1007/978-3-642-33197-8_13Search in Google Scholar

[10] J. Goetz, S. Kiesler, A. Powers, Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation, In: The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Proceedings, RO-MAN 2003, 55–60Search in Google Scholar

[11] D. S. Syrdal, K. Dautenhahn, K. L. Koay, M. L. Walters, The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human-robot interaction study, Adaptive and Emergent Behavior and Complex Systems, 2009Search in Google Scholar

[12] S. Nishio, H. Ishiguro, N. Hagita, Can a teleoperated android represent personal presence? - A case study with children, Psychologia, 2007, 50(4), 330–34210.2117/psysoc.2007.330Search in Google Scholar

[13] P. J. Hinds, T. L. Roberts, H. Jones, Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task, Human-Computer Interaction, 2005, 19, 151–18110.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_7Search in Google Scholar

[14] J. Kätsyri, K. Förger, M. Mäkäräinen, T. Takala, A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness, Frontiers in Psychology, 2015, 6, Article 390, DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0039010.3389/fpsyg.2015.00390Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[15] L. Damiano, P. Dumouchel, Anthropomorphism in human-robot co-evolution, Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, 9, Article 468, DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0046810.3389/fpsyg.2018.00468Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[16] C. Bartneck, D. Kulić, E. Croft, S. Zoghbi, Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots, International Journal of Social Robotics, 2009, 1(1), 71–8110.1007/s12369-008-0001-3Search in Google Scholar

[17] P. H. Kahn et al., The new ontological category hypothesis in human-robot interaction, In: Proceedings of the 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’11), IEEE, 2011, 15910.1145/1957656.1957710Search in Google Scholar

[18] S. Turkle, Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other, Hachette UK, 2017Search in Google Scholar

[19] J. Seibt, Towards an ontology of simulated social interaction: Varieties of the “As if?” for robots and humans, In: R. Hakli, J. Seibt (Eds.), Sociality and Normativity for Robots, Studies in the Philosophy of Sociality, Springer, Cham, 2017, 11–3910.1007/978-3-319-53133-5_2Search in Google Scholar

[20] J. Seibt, Classifying forms and modes of co-working in the ontology of asymmetric social interactions (OASIS), Envisioning Robots in Society – Power, Politics, and Public Space, 2018, 311, 133–146Search in Google Scholar

[21] E. van Kleef, H. C. M. van Trijp, P. Luning, Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques, Food Quality and Preference, 2005, 16(3), 181–20110.1016/j.foodqual.2004.05.012Search in Google Scholar

[22] J. Förster, J. Marguc, M. Gillebaart, Novelty categorization theory, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2010, 4(9), 736–75510.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00289.xSearch in Google Scholar

[23] C. V. Smedegaard, Reframing the role of novelty within social HRI: from noise to information, In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2019), IEEE, 2019, 411–42010.1109/HRI.2019.8673219Search in Google Scholar

[24] S. Nishio, H. Ishiguro, Attitude change induced by different appearances of interaction agents, International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 2011, 3(1), 115–12610.1142/S1793843011000637Search in Google Scholar

[25] S. Kiesler, A. Powers, S. R. Fussell, C. Torrey, Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent, Social Cognition, 2008, 26(2), 169–18110.1521/soco.2008.26.2.169Search in Google Scholar

[26] J. Yamato, K. Shinozawa, F. Naya, K. Kogure, Evaluation of communication with robot and agent: Are robots better social actors than agents?, In: INTERACT, 2001, 690–691Search in Google Scholar

[27] O. Akiho, M. Sugaya, Impression evaluation for active behavior of robot in human robot interaction, In: M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction, Novel User Experiences, HCI 2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9733, Springer, Cham, 2016, 83–9510.1007/978-3-319-39513-5_8Search in Google Scholar

[28] A. Edwards, C. Edwards, D. Westerman, P. R. Spence, Initial expectations, interactions, and beyond with social robots, Computers in Human Behaviour, 2019, 90, 308–31410.1016/j.chb.2018.08.042Search in Google Scholar

[29] J. Beer et al., Older users’ acceptance of an assistive robot: Attitudinal changes following brief exposure, Gerontechnology, 2017, 16(1), 21–3610.4017/gt.2017.16.1.003.00Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[30] S. Yokota, H. Hashimoto, D. Chugo, K. Kawabata, Motion design of service robot — Study on human impression, In: 2014 12th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), 2014, 770–77410.1109/INDIN.2014.6945610Search in Google Scholar

[31] S. Suzuki, T. Shimazu, K. Kasakawa, Prototyping for robot motion design through subjective and objective analyses, IEEJ Journal of Industry Applications, 2014, 3(2), 174–18110.1541/ieejjia.3.174Search in Google Scholar

[32] A. M. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, N. C. Krämer, J. Herrmann, The effects of humanlike and robot-specific affective nonverbal behavior on perception, emotion, and behavior, International Journal of Social Robotics, 2018, 10(5), 569–58210.1007/s12369-018-0466-7Search in Google Scholar

[33] Á. Castro-González et al., The effects of an impolite vs. a polite robot playing rock-paper-scissors, In: A. Agah, J. J. Cabibihan, A. Howard, M. Salichs, H. He (Eds.), Social Robotics, ICSR 2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9979, Springer, Cham, 2016, 306–31610.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_30Search in Google Scholar

[34] C. Bartneck, T. Kanda, O. Mubin, A. Al Mahmud, Does the design of a robot influence its animacy and perceived intelligence?, International Journal of Social Robotics, 2009, 1(2), 195–20410.1007/s12369-009-0013-7Search in Google Scholar

[35] C. F. DiSalvo, F. Gemperle, J. Forlizzi, S. Kiesler, All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads, In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, 2002, 321–32610.1145/778712.778756Search in Google Scholar

[36] M. F. Damholdt, C. Vestergaard, M. Nørskov, R. Hakli, S. K. Larsen, J. Seibt, A scale for assessment of attitudes towards social robots: the attitudes towards social robots scale (ASOR), Interaction Studies, 2019Search in Google Scholar

[37] R. B. Johnson, A. J. Onwuegbuzie, L. A. Turner, Toward a definition of mixed methods research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2007, 1(2), 112–13310.1177/1558689806298224Search in Google Scholar

[38] K. Ogawa et al., Telenoid: tele-presence android for communication, In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2011 Emerging Technologies, 2011, Article 1510.1145/2048259.2048274Search in Google Scholar

[39] M. Bednarek, Dimensions of evaluation: Cognitive and linguistic perspectives, Pragmatics and Cognition, 2009, 17(1), 146–17510.1075/pc.17.1.05bedSearch in Google Scholar

[40] M. Bednarek, Evaluation in Media Discourse, London, New York: Continuum, 2006Search in Google Scholar

[41] J. L. Lemke, Resources for attitudinal meaning: Evaluative orientations in text semantics, Functions of Language, 1998, 5(1), 33–5610.1075/fol.5.1.03lemSearch in Google Scholar

[42] S. Hunston, G. Thompson, Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Oxford University Press, 2000Search in Google Scholar

[43] J. R. Martin, P. R. R. White, The Language of Evaluation, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2005Search in Google Scholar

[44] M. Smith, D. Lewis, M. Johnston, Dispositional theories of value, In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 1989, 63, 89–17410.1093/aristoteliansupp/63.1.89Search in Google Scholar

[45] D. Kemmerer, Word classes in the brain: Implications of linguistic typology for cognitive neuroscience, Cortex, 2014, 58, 27–51,10.1016/j.cortex.2014.05.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[46] T. E. Oliphant, A guide to NumPy, 1. Trelgol Publishing USA, 2006Search in Google Scholar

[47] W. McKinney, Data structures for statistical computing in python, In: Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, 2010, 445, 51–5610.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00aSearch in Google Scholar

[48] R. Al-Rfou, B. Perozzi, S. Skiena, Polyglot: Distributed word representations for multilingual nlp, arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.1662, 2013Search in Google Scholar

[49] J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment, Computing in Science and Engineering, 2007, 9(3), 90–9510.1109/MCSE.2007.55Search in Google Scholar

[50] Michael Waskom et al., mwaskom/seaborn: v0.8.1 (September 2017), Zenodo, 2017Search in Google Scholar

[51] M. Gamer, J. Lemon, I. Fellows, P. Singh, irr: Various coeflcients of interrater reliability and agreement, R package v. 0.84. 2012Search in Google Scholar

[52] H. Wickham, R. Francois, L. Henry, Müller, K. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation, R package version 0.7. 6. 2018Search in Google Scholar

[53] H. Wickham, ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, 201610.1007/978-3-319-24277-4Search in Google Scholar

[54] A. Kuznetsova, P. B. Brockhoff, R. H. B. Christensen, lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models, Journal of Statistical Software, 2017, 82(13), DOI: 10.18637/jss.v082.i1310.18637/jss.v082.i13Search in Google Scholar

[55] G. Hofree, P. Ruvolo, M. S. Bartlett, P. Winkielman, Bridging the mechanical and the human mind: spontaneous mimicry of a physically present android, PLOS ONE, 2014, 9(7), e9993410.1371/journal.pone.0099934Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[56] U. Bruckenberger, A. Weiss, N. Mirnig, E. Strasser, S. Stadler, M. Tscheligi, The good, the bad, the weird: Audience evaluation of a “real” robot in relation to science fiction and mass media, In: G. Herrmann, M. J. Pearson, A. Lenz, P. Bremner, A. Spiers, U. Leonards (Eds.), Social Robotics, ICSR 2013, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8239, Springer, Cham, 2013, 301–31010.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_30Search in Google Scholar

[57] S. Turkle, Alone together, New York: Basic Books, 2011Search in Google Scholar

[58] N. Lapidot-Lefler, A. Barak, Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition, Computers in Human Behavior, 2012, 28(2), 434–44310.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014Search in Google Scholar

[59] J. Suler, The online disinhibition effect, Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 2004, 7(3), 321–32610.1089/1094931041291295Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[60] W. A. Bainbridge, J. W. Hart, E. S. Kim, B. Scassellati, The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents, International Journal of Social Robotics, 2011, 3(1), 41–5210.1007/s12369-010-0082-7Search in Google Scholar

[61] B. Reeves, C. I. Nass, The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places, Cambridge University Press, 1996Search in Google Scholar

[62] A. Prakash, W. A. Rogers, Why some humanoid faces are perceived more positively than others: effects of human-likeness and task, International Journal of Social Robotics, 2015, 7(2), 309–33110.1007/s12369-014-0269-4Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[63] E. Broadbent et al., Robots with display screens: a robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality, PloS One, 2013, 8(8), e7258910.1371/journal.pone.0072589Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[64] E. Phillips, X. Zhao, D. Ullman, B. F. Malle, What is human-like?: Decomposing robots’ human-like appearance using the anthropomorphic roBOT (ABOT) database, In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2018, 105–11310.1145/3171221.3171268Search in Google Scholar

[65] F. Eyssel, F. Hegel, G. Horstmann, C. Wagner, Anthropomorphic inferences from emotional nonverbal cues: A case study, In: Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium in Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2010), 2010, 646–65110.1109/ROMAN.2010.5598687Search in Google Scholar

[66] F. Eyssel, L. de Ruiter, D. Kuchenbrandt, S. Bobinger, F. Hegel, ‘If you sound like me, you must be more human’: On the interplay of robot and user features on human-robot acceptance and anthropomorphism, In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2012, 125–12610.1145/2157689.2157717Search in Google Scholar

[67] D. S. Syrdal, K. Dautenhahn, S. Woods, M. L. Walters, K. L. Koay, ‘Doing the right thing wrong’: Personality and tolerance to uncomfortable robot approaches, In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2006), 2006, 183–18810.1109/ROMAN.2006.314415Search in Google Scholar

[68] J. C. Skewes, D. Amodio, J. Seibt, Social robotics and the modulation of social perception and bias, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2019 (in press)10.1098/rstb.2018.0037Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[69] E. Wiese, P. P. Weis, D. M. Lofaro, Embodied social robots trigger gaze following in real-time HRI, In: 2018 15th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR), 2018, 477–48210.1109/URAI.2018.8441825Search in Google Scholar

[70] J. Seibt, C. Vestergaard, Fair proxy communication: Using social robots to modify the mechanisms of implicit social cognition, Research Ideas and Outcomes, 2018, 4, e3182710.3897/rio.4.e31827Search in Google Scholar

[71] D. Zanatto, M. Patacchiola, J. Goslin, A. Cangelosi, Priming anthropomorphism: Can the credibility of humanlike robots be transferred to non-humanlike robots?, In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2016, 543–54410.1109/HRI.2016.7451847Search in Google Scholar

[72] A. Stenzel, E. Chinellato, M. A. T. Bou, Á. P. del Pobil, M. Lappe, R. Liepelt, When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: corepresentation of robotic actions, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 2012, 38(5), 1073–107710.1037/a0029493Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[73] J. Willis, A. Todorov, First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face, Psychological Science, 2006, 17(7), 592–59810.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed