Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot

ABSTRACT

HRI researchers interested in social robots have made large investments in humanoid robots. There is still sparse evidence that peoples' responses to robots differ from their responses to computer agents, suggesting that agent studies might serve to test HRI hypotheses. To help us understand the difference between people's social interactions with an agent and a robot, we experimentally compared people's responses in a health interview with (a) a computer agent projected either on a computer monitor or life-size on a screen, (b) a remote robot projected life-size on a screen, or (c) a collocated robot in the same room. We found a few behavioral and large attitude differences across these conditions. Participants forgot more and disclosed least with the collocated robot, next with the projected remote robot, and then with the agent. They spent more time with the collocated robot and their attitudes were most positive toward that robot. We discuss tradeoffs for HRI research of using collocated robots, remote robots, and computer agents as proxies of robots.

References

1. Berry, D. C., Butler, L. T., de Rosis, F. Evaluating a realistic agent in an advice-giving task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 2005, 304--327.
2. Bradner, E., & Mark, G. Social presence with video and application sharing. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP'01). Sept 30-Oct 3, 2001, Boulder, CO). NY: ACM Press, 2001, 154--161.
3. Guerin, B. Mere presence effects in humans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 1986, 38--77.
4. Hall, M.A., Zheng, B., Dugan, E., Fabian, C., Kidd, K, Mishra, A., and Balkrishnan, R. Measuring patients' trust in their primary care providers. Medical Care Research and Review, 59 (3), Sept. 2002, 293--318.
5. Hinds, P., D. Bailey. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 14(6), 2003, 615--532.
6. Huang, W., Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2002). Camera angle affects dominance in video-mediated communication. CHI 2002 Late Breaking Results (pp. 716--717).
7. Jettmar, E. & Nass, C. Adaptive testing: Effects on user performance. . In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Computer Systems CHI'02. (April 20-25, 2001, Minneapolis). NY: ACM Press, 2002, 129--134.
8. Judge, T., & Cable, D. M. The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: Preliminary test of a theoretical model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (3), 2004, 428--441.
9. Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. What do we know about proximity in work groups? A legacy of research on physical distance. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler, Distributed Work, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002, 57--80.
10. Lenzo, K.A., and Black, A.W., Theta, Cepstral, http://www.cepstral.com
11. Levav, J., & Fitzsimons, G. J. When questions change behavior: The role of ease of representation. Psychological Science, 17 (3), 2006, 207--213.
12. Powers, A. An Easy To Use Dialogue Tool: AIMLE. Unpublished ms., HCII, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
13. Powers, A., & Kiesler, S. The advisor robot: Tracing people's mental model from a robot's physical attributes. Conference on Human-Robot Interaction 2006. Salt Lake City, March 1-3, 2006, 218--225.
14. Powers, A., Kramer, A. D. I., Lim, S., Kuo, J., Lee, S-L., Kiesler, S. Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. Robot and Human Interactive Communication Proceedings. ROMAN 2005. The 14th IEEE International Workshop (Nashville, TE. Aug 14-15), 2005.
15. Rakison, D. H. & Poulin-Dubois, D. Developmental origin of the animate-inanimate distinction. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (2), 2001, 209--228.
16. Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., Drasgow, F. A meta-analytic study of social desirability distorion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (5), 1999, 754--775.
17. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. NY: Academic Press, 1991.
18. Sheridan, T. B. Defining our terms. Presence, 1, 272--274.
19. Simmons, R., et al., GRACE: An autonomous robot for the AAAI Robot Challenge, AAAI Magazine, 24, 2, 2003, 51--72.
20. Tan, D. S., & Czerwinski, M. Information voyeurism: Social impact of physical large displays on information privacy. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Computer Systems CHI'03. (April 5-10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale). NY: ACM Press, 2003, 748--749.
21. Torrey, C. Powers, A., Marge, M., Fussell, S., & Kiesler, S. Effects of adaptive robot dialogue on information exchange and social relation. Proceedings of the Conference on Human-Robot Interaction 2006. (Salt Lake City, March 1-3), 2006, 126--133.
22. Welch, R. B. How can we determine if the sense of presence affects task performance? Presence, 8 (5), 1999, 574--577.
23. Yamato, J., Shinozawa, K., Naya, F., Kogure, K. Evaluation of communication with robot and agent: Are robots better social actors than agents? In Proceedings of the 8th IFIP TC.13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT'01) (Tokyo, Japan, July 9-13), 2001, 690--691.
24. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. Measuring presence in virtual environments. (ARI Technical Report 1014). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1998.
25. Zajonc, R. B. Social facilitation. Science, 149, 1965, 269--274.

Index Terms

• Computing methodologies

  • Artificial intelligence

    • Philosophical/theoretical foundations of artificial intelligence

      • Cognitive science

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • Empirical studies in HCI

    • HCI design and evaluation methods

    • HCI theory, concepts and models

  • Interaction design

    • Interaction design theory, concepts and paradigms