Article Information

SOCIAL ASPECTS OF HUMAN-ROBOT INTERACTION: EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH EXPERIENCE

Roman Abramovab (rabramov@hse.ru), Viktoria Katechkinaa

a HSE University, Moscow, Russia

b Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Citation: Abramov R., Katechkina V. (2022) Sotsial'nyye aspekty vzaimodeystviya cheloveka i robota: opyt eksperimental'nogo issledovaniya [Social aspects of human-robot interaction: experimental research experience]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsialnoy antropologii [The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology], 25(2): 214–243 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2022.25.2.9

Abstract. Modern cultural and technological changes have contributed to the expansion of social artifacts, including the involvement in society of initially (non) social, that is, objects that do not act like people. This applies to materialized neo-social subjects, namely, the so-called social robots, manifested in material and non-material forms. The subjects of interaction include all kinds of voice assistants, chat bots, social robots, which are sometimes involved in society as if they were people. Our study is an attempt to reveal the peculiarities of people's perception of the emergence of special intelligent systems — social robots in everyday situations. The first part of the article is devoted to an overview of the main theoretical approaches in sociology to the study of the interaction between a robot and a person, with an emphasis on the barriers and fears of such interaction. Then the research methodology is described, which has become a factorial survey using the vignetting method, which is a fictional brief description of a certain object, individual or situation, which contains systematically varying experimental factors. Students of Moscow universities aged 18 and over took part in the study. According to the results of the study, the perception of human-robot interaction was mediated by a number of sociocultural phenomena and there was a tendency for higher assessments of the admissibility of a humanoid robot in all situations, but a contrast in assessments depending on the situation for an android robot was also noticeable. The study made it possible to comprehensively assess the importance of factors in the perception of neomorphic subjects, which are most often mentioned in thematic scientific publications. The potential scientific value of the work lies in the breadth of coverage of various factors and the approbation of the factorial survey method for assessing the perception of interaction with neomorphic subjects using the example of robots. The results of the study can become a practical guide for developers on how to make social interfaces more acceptable and understandable to people — this is the potential practical value of the work.

Keywords: human-robot interaction, social robot, factorial survey, vignette, uncanny valley, algorithmization. 

References

Alexander C.S., Becker H.J. (1978) The Use of Vignettes in Survey Research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42: 93–104.

Atzmüller C., Steiner P.M. (2010) Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology. European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6: 128–138.

Beckers R., Holland O.E., Deneubourg J.-L. (1994) From local actions to global tasks: Stigmergy and collective robotics. Artificial Life IV, Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 181–189.

Beni G. (2004) From Swarm Intelligence to Swarm Robotics. In: Swarm Robotics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: 1–9.

Bonnefon J.F., Shariff A., Rahwan I. (2016) The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 6293(352): 1573 — 1576.

Breazeal C. (2004) Social interactions in HRI: the robot view. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 2(34): 181–186.

Breazeal C., Dautenhahn K., Kanda T. (2016) Social Robotics. In: Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer, Cham: 1935–1972.

Burnham T.C., Hare B. (2007) Engineering Human Cooperation. Does Involuntary Neural Activation Increase Public Goods Contribution. Human Nature, 18(2): 88–108.

Caro F.G., Ho T., McFadden D., Gottlieb A.S., Yee C., Chan T., Winter J. (2012) Using the Internet to Administer More Realistic Vignette Experiments. Social Science Computer Review, 30: 184–201.

Castells M. (2000) The Information Age: Economics, Society and Culture [Informatsionnaya epokha: ekonomika, obshchestvo i kul'tura]. Moscow: State University Higher School of Economics (in Russian).

Clark A., Chalmers D. (1998) The Extended Mind. Analysis, 1(58): 7–19.

Devyatko I.F. (2007) Prichinnost' v obydennom soznanii i v sotsiologicheskom ob"yasnenii: kontury novogo issledovatel'skogo podkhoda [Causality in everyday consciousness and in sociological explanation: outlines of a new research approach]. Sotsiologiya: metodologiya, metody, matematicheskoye modelirovaniye (Sotsiologiya:4M) [Sociology: methodology, methods, mathematical modeling (Sociology: 4M)], 25: 5–21 (in Russian).

Donaldson T.S. (1968) Robustness of the F-test to errors of both kinds and the correlation between the numerator and denominator of the F-ratio. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63: 660–676.

Duffy B.R., Rooney C., O’Hare G.M., O’Donoghue R. (1999) What is a Social Robot? In: 10th Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Cognitive Science. University College Cork, Ireland.

Epley N., Waytz A., Cacioppo J. T. (2007) On Seeing Human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114: 864–886.

Eyssel F., Hegel F. (2012) (S)he's Got the Look: Gender Stereotyping of Robots. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(2): 2213–2230.

Fischer K. (2006) What Computer Talk Is and Isn't: Human-Computer Conversation as Intercultural Communication. Saarbrücken: AQ-Verlag.

Fischer K. (2011) How People Talk with Robots: Designing Dialogue to Reduce User Uncertainty. AI Magazine, 32(4): 31–38.

Fischer K., Foth K., Rohlfing K., Wrede B. (2011) Mindful Tutors: Linguistic Choice and Action Demonstration in Speech to Infants and a Simulated Robot. Interaction Studies, 12(1): 134–161.

Fong T., Nourbakhsh I., Dautenhahn K. (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and autonomous systems, 3(42): 143–166.

Galkin D.V., Serbin V.A. (2013) Evolyutsiya pol'zovatel'skikh interfeysov: ot terminala k dopolnennoy real'nosti [The evolution of user interfaces: from terminal to augmented reality]. Gumanitarnaya informatika [Humanities Computing], 7: 35–49 (in Russian).

Goodwin J. (2004) Issledovaniye v psikhologii: metody i planirovaniye [Research in psychology: methods and planning]. Saint Peterburg: Piter (in Russian).

Hegel F., Muhl C., Wrede B., Hielscher-Fastabend M., Sagerer G. (2009) Understanding social robots. In: Second International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, 169–174.

Heyselaar E., Hagoor P., Segaer K. (2015) In Dialogue with an Avatar, Language Behavior is Identical to Dialogue with a Human Partner. Behavior Research Methods, December 16: 1–15.

Katerny I.V. (2017) Kauzal'nyye ob"yasneniya effekta zloveshchey doliny v robototekhnike: teorii i issledovatel'skiye dannyye [Causal explanations for the uncanny valley effect in robotics: theories and research evidence]. Kachestvo i zhizn [Quality and life], 4: 84–92 (in Russian).

Katerny I.V. (2017) Transmobil'nost' i normativnyy morfogenez v usloviyakh postgumanizirovannogo obshchestva: kak vse yeshche vozmozhen sotsial'nyy poryadok? [Transmobility and normative morphogenesis in a post-humanized society: how is social order still possible?]. In: Normy i moral' v sotsiologicheskoy teorii: ot klassicheskikh kontseptsiy k novym ideyam [Norms and morality in sociological theory: from classical concepts to new ideas]. Devyatko I.F., Abramov R.N., Katerny I.V. (ed.) Moscow: Ves Mir: 91–135 (in Russian).

Khonineva E.A. (2017) Gender i displey: kommunikativnyye zhanry i sposoby kategorizatsii vo vzaimodeystvii s golosovymi assistentami [Gender and display: communicative genres and categorization methods in interaction with voice assistants]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsialnoy antropologii [The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology], 20(5): 95–112 (in Russian).

Looije R., Cnossen F., Neerincx M.A. (2006) Incorporating guidelines for health assistance into a socially intelligent robot. In: The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 515–520.

Lunney G.H. (1970) Using analysis of variance with a dichotomous dependent variable: An empirical study. Journal of educational measurement, 7(4): 263–269.

MacDorman K.F., Entezari S.O. (2015) Individual Differences Predict Sensitivity to the Uncanny Valley. Interaction Studies, 16(2): 141–172.

Maksimova A. (2020) Nastroyka sobesednika: telefonnyy razgovor s robotom. [Setting up an interlocutor: a telephone conversation with a robot]. In: Priklyucheniya tekhnologiy: bar'yery tsifrovizatsii v Rossii [Technology adventures: barriers to digitalization in Russia]. L. V. Zemnukhova et al. Sankt Peterburg: FNISTS RAN: 95–132 (in Russian).

Manovich L. (2018) Yazyk novykh media [The language of new media]. Moscow: Ad Marginem (in Russian).

Mohammad Y., Nishida T. Data Mining for Social Robotics Toward Autonomously Social Robots. Geneva: Springer, 2015.

Mori M. (2012) The Uncanny Valley. IEEE Robotics and Automation, 19(2): 98–100.

Nass C. (2004) Etiquette Equality: Exhibitions and Expectations of Computer Politeness. Communications of the ACM, 7(4): 35–37.

Nass C., Brave S. (2006) Wired for Speech: How Voice Activates and Advances the Human-Computer Relationship. Computational Linguistics, 32(3): 451–452.

Nass C., Moon Y. (2000) Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1): 81–103.

Pierce C.A., Aguinis H. (1997) Using virtual reality technology in organizational behavior research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 407–410.

Reynolds R.I. (1992) Recognition of expertise in chess players. American Journal of Psychology, 105: 409–415.

Schegloff E.A. (1997) Whose text, whose context? Discourse & Society, 8(2): 165–187.

Schutz A. (2003) Smyslovaya struktura povsednevnogo mira: ocherki po fenomenologicheskoy sotsiologii [Meaningful Structure of the Everyday World: Essays on Phenomenological Sociology]. Moscow: Institute of the Public Opinion Foundation (in Russian).

Siegel M., Breazeal M.C., Norton M. (2009) Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. (IROS): 2563–2568

Stockard J., Johnson M. (1992) Sex and gender in society. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992.

Tabachnick B. G., Fidell L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.

Zilberman N.N. (2014) Funktsional'naya klassifikatsiya sotsial'nykh robotov [Functional classification of social robots]. Gumanitarnaya informatika [Humanities Computing], 8: 30–39. (in Russian).

Zilberman N.N. (2017) Obzor issledovaniy vospriyatiya sotsial'nogo robota v statuse vyshe cheloveka [Review of studies on the perception of a social robot in a status above a person]. Gumanitarnaya informatika [Humanities Computing], 13: 30–38. (in Russian).

Zilberman N.N., Stefantsova M.A. (2016) Sotsial'nyy robot: podkhody k opredeleniyu ponyatiya [Social robot: approaches to the definition of the concept]. Russian Journal of Education and Psychology, 11(67): 297–312 (in Russian)