Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access March 26, 2019

User expectations of privacy in robot assisted therapy

Zachary Henkel EMAIL logo , Kenna Baugus , Cindy L. Bethel and David C. May

Abstract

This article describes ethical issues related to the design and use of social robots in sensitive contexts like psychological interventions and provides insights from one user design study and two controlled experiments with adults and children. User expectations regarding privacy with a therapeutic robotic dog, Therabot, gathered from a 16 participant design study are presented. Furthermore, results from 142 forensic interviews about bullying experiences conducted with children (ages 8 to 17) using three different social robots (Nao, Female RoboKind, Male RoboKind) and humans (female and male) as forensic interviewers are examined to provide insights into child beliefs about privacy and social judgment in sensitive interactions with social robots. The data collected indicates that adult participants felt a therapeutic robotic dog would be most useful for children in comparison to other age groups, and should include privacy safeguards. Data obtained from children after a forensic interview about their bullying experiences shows that they perceive social robots as providing significantly more socially protective factors than adult humans. These findings provide insight into how children perceive social robots and illustrate the need for careful considerationwhen designing social robots that will be used in sensitive contexts with vulnerable users like children.

References

[1] Z. Henkel, C. L. Bethel, A robot forensic interviewer: The bad, the good, and the undiscovered, In: Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ACM, 2017, 10–2010.1145/3029798.3034783Search in Google Scholar

[2] C. J. Calo, N. Hunt-Bull, L. Lewis, T. Metzler, Ethical implications of using the Paro robotwith a focus on dementia patient care, In: Proceedings of the 12th AAAI Conference on Human-Robot Interaction in Elder Care, AAAI Press, 2011, 20–24Search in Google Scholar

[3] S. Thill, C. Pop, T. Belpaeme, T. Ziemke, B. Vanderborght, Robotassisted therapy for autism spectrum disorders with (partially) autonomous control: Challenges and outlook, Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 2012, 3(4), 209–21710.2478/s13230-013-0107-7Search in Google Scholar

[4] R. Ros, M. Nalin, R. Wood, P. Baxter, R. Looije, Y. Demiris, T. Belpaeme, A. Giusti, C. Pozzi, Child-robot interaction in thewild: advice to the aspiring experimenter, In: ICMI ’11 Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, ACM, 2011, 335–34210.1145/2070481.2070545Search in Google Scholar

[5] J. Saldien, K. Goris, S. Yilmazyildiz, W. Verhelst, D. Lefeber, On the design of the huggable robot Probo, Journal of Physical Agents, Red de Agentes Físicos, 2008, 2(2), 3–1110.14198/JoPha.2008.2.2.02Search in Google Scholar

[6] K. Goris, J. Saldien, I. Vanderniepen, D. Lefeber, The huggable robot Probo, a multi-disciplinary research platform, In: International Conference on Research and Education in Robotics, Springer, 2008, 29–4110.1007/978-3-642-03558-6_4Search in Google Scholar

[7] B. Robins, K. Dautenhahn, R. Boekhorst, A. Billard, Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills?, In: Universal Access in the Information Society, Springer, 2005, 4(2), 105–12010.1007/s10209-005-0116-3Search in Google Scholar

[8] B. Scassellati, H. Admoni, M. Mataric, Robots for use in autism research, Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, Annual Reviews, 2012, 14, 275–29410.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150036Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] N. Giullian, D. Ricks, A. Atherton, M. Colton, M. Goodrich, B. Brinton, Detailed requirements for robots in autism therapy, In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems Man and Cybernetics (SMC), IEEE, 2010, 295–260210.1109/ICSMC.2010.5641908Search in Google Scholar

[10] M. Saerbeck, T. Schut, C. Bartneck, M. Janse, Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor, In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 2010, 1613–162210.1145/1753326.1753567Search in Google Scholar

[11] T. Komatsubara, M. Shiomi, T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, N. Hagita, Can a social robot help children’s understanding of science in classrooms?, In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, ACM, 2014, 83–9010.1145/2658861.2658881Search in Google Scholar

[12] D. Leyzberg, S. Spaulding, B. Scassellati, Personalizing robot tutors to individuals’ learning differences, In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ACM, 2014, 423–43010.1145/2559636.2559671Search in Google Scholar

[13] J. Westlund, C. Breazeal, A. Story, Deception, secrets, children, and robots: What’s acceptable, In: Workshop on the Emerging Policy and Ethics of Human-Robot Interaction, held in conjunctionwith the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ACM, 2015Search in Google Scholar

[14] J. M. Kory Westlund, C. Breazeal, Transparency, teleoperation, and children’s understanding of social robots, In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), IEEE, 2016, 625–62610.1109/HRI.2016.7451888Search in Google Scholar

[15] M. E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, I. Hershkowitz, P. Esplin, D. Horowitz, A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD investigative interview protocol, In: Child Abuse & Neglect, Elsevier, 2007, 31(11-12), 1201–123110.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[16] J. F. Kelley, An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications, In: ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), ACM, 1984, 2(1), 26–4110.1145/357417.357420Search in Google Scholar

[17] C. R. Rogers, L. Carmichael, Client–Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications, and Theory, with Chapters Contributed by E. Dorfman, T. Gordon, and N. Hobbs, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951Search in Google Scholar

[18] Z. Henkel, C. L. Bethel, J. Kelly, A. Jones, K. Stives, Z. Buchanan, et al., He can read your mind: Perceptions of a characterguessing robot, In: 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, 2017, 242–24710.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172309Search in Google Scholar

[19] P.Wittenburg, H. Brugman, A. Russel, A. Klassmann, H. Sloetjes, Elan: a professional framework for multimodality research, In: 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), 2006, 1556–1559Search in Google Scholar

[20] A. L. Nichols, J. K. Maner, The good-subject effect: Investigating participant demand characteristics, Journal of General Psychology, 2008, 135(2), 151–16610.3200/GENP.135.2.151-166Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] M. Mori, K. F. MacDorman, N. Kageki, The uncanny valley [from the field], IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE, 2012, 19(2), 98–10010.1109/MRA.2012.2192811Search in Google Scholar

[22] A. Holloway, Goodbye Mariah: More than 1,000 attend vigil in memory of Armstrong middle school student, In: The Commercial Dispatch, May 2, 2017Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-07-31
Accepted: 2019-01-21
Published Online: 2019-03-26

© 2019 Zachary Henkel et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.

Downloaded on 28.11.2022 from frontend.live.degruyter.dgbricks.com/document/doi/10.1515/pjbr-2019-0010/html
Scroll Up Arrow