Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access December 31, 2019

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

Malene Flensborg Damholdt ORCID logo, Vestergaard Christina, Anna Kryvous, Catharina Vesterager Smedegaard and Johanna Seibt

Abstract

We explore the impressions and conceptualisations produced by participants after their first encounter with the teleoperated robot, Telenoid R1.

Participants were invited to freely report the first three words that came to mind after seeing the robot. Here we triangulate (i) three-word data from an online survey (n=340) where respondents saw a brief video of the Telenoid with (ii) three-word data from an interaction study where participants interacted with a physically present Telenoid (n=75) and, (iii) data from qualitative interviews (n=7) with participants who had engaged with the Telenoid. Data were subjected to sentiment analysis, linguistic analysis and regression analysis.

Ranking of the most frequently produced words in the two groups revealed an overlap on the top-10 produced words (6 out of 10 words). Sentiment analysis and regression revealed an association between negative predicates and the online condition. Sentiments were not convincingly associated with age or gender. Linguistic categorisations of the data revealed that especially adjectives expressing response-dependent features were frequent. We did not find any consistent statistical effect on categorising the words into cognitive and emotional predicates.

The proposed three-word method offers, unguided approach to explore initial conceptualisations of robots.

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

Received: 2019-01-31
Accepted: 2019-11-19
Published Online: 2019-12-31

© 2019 Malene Flensborg Damholdt et al., published by De Gruyter

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

Scroll Up Arrow