The Ripple Effects of Vulnerability

Sebo, Sarah; Traeger, Margaret; Jung, Malte; Scassellati, Brian

doi:10.1145/3171221.3171275

Cited by 103 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In another study regarding group membership, Sembroski et al [2017] found that in-group and out-group perception between humans and robots can lead to more conformist behaviors from people, depending on the request type and level of authority. A different study investigated a robot's potential to shape trust in groups of humans, concluding that the robot that exhibited vulnerable behavior (in comparison with a neutral robot) promoted more group engagement and social signs of trust, with people providing more support in times of failure [Strohkorb Sebo et al 2018]. Furthermore, a study dedicated to the investigation of non-verbal behavior between a robot and multiple people concluded that the gaze of the robot influences people's perception of the motion of the robot and that, in turn, affects the perception of the robot's gaze [Vázquez et al 2017].…”

Section: Groups Of Humans and Robotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empathic Robot for Group Learning

Alves‐Oliveira

Sequeira

Melo

et al. 2019

J. Hum.-Robot Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work explores a group learning scenario with an autonomous empathic robot. We address two research questions: (1) Can an autonomous robot designed with empathic competencies foster collaborative learning in a group context? (2) Can an empathic robot sustain positive educational outcomes in long-term collaborative learning interactions with groups of students? To answer these questions, we developed an autonomous robot with empathic competencies that is able to interact with a group of students in a learning activity about sustainable development. Two studies were conducted. The first study compares learning outcomes in children across 3 conditions: learning with an empathic robot; learning with a robot without empathic capabilities; and learning without a robot. The results show that the autonomous robot with empathy fosters meaningful discussions about sustainability, which is a learning outcome in sustainability education. The second study features groups of students who interact with the robot in a school classroom for two months. The long-term educational interaction did not seem to provide significant learning gains, although there was a change in game-actions to achieve more sustainability during game-play. This result reflects the need to perform more long-term research in the field of educational robots for group learning.

show abstract

Section: Groups Of Humans and Robotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empathic Robot for Group Learning

Alves‐Oliveira

Sequeira

Melo

et al. 2019

J. Hum.-Robot Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social robots ( Figure 1) have many desirable properties like establishing faster rapport with humans, improved task cooperation and learning, and positive effect on task completion and recall, among many others [3,30,57]. Robots that communicate with their operators "in a human-like way" [17] have appeared in research labs since at least the 1970s, when WABOT-1 was completed at Waseda University, Japan [33].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Value of Social Robots through the Eyes of Expert Users

Dereshev

Kirk

Matsumura

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socially-enabled digital technologies have attracted academic interest for decades, with recent commercial examples of Siri and Alexa, capturing public attention. However, despite ubiquitous visions of a robotic future, very few fully-fledged social robots are currently available to consumers. To improve their designs, studies of their long-term use are particularly valuable, but are currently unavailable. To address this gap, we report on interviews with four long-term users of Pepper-a social robot introduced in 2014. Our thematic analysis elicited insights across three kinds of value Pepper brought to its users: utilitarian functionality; the community that formed around Pepper; and a personal value of affection. We focus on two contributions those values bring to social robot design: social robots as social proxies, alleviating disabilities or acting akin to social media profiles; and robot nurturing as a design construct, going beyond purely utilitarian or hedonistic perspectives on robots.

show abstract

“…One of the novel contributions of the current paper lies in the observation that the degree of reliance on the help of a robot can be modulated, in turn, by the reliance of the robot itself on its human partner. Although in some contexts robots’ vulnerability and susceptibility may generate positive emotional responses ( Strohkorb Sebo et al., 2018 ), our results highlight how interaction with a susceptible robot may lead to detrimental consequences in terms of confidence in the robot’s competence and, consequently, in individuals’ reliance on its help and advice. This is particularly important if we consider that, in our task, the robot’s performance was much higher than that of participants, meaning that its help would have been a valuable tool for behavioral improvement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

The role of reciprocity in human-robot social influence

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Humans are constantly influenced by others’ behavior and opinions. Of importance, social influence among humans is shaped by reciprocity: we follow more the advice of someone who has been taking into consideration our opinions. In the current work, we investigate whether reciprocal social influence can emerge while interacting with a social humanoid robot. In a joint task, a human participant and a humanoid robot made perceptual estimates and then could overtly modify them after observing the partner’s judgment. Results show that endowing the robot with the ability to express and modulate its own level of susceptibility to the human’s judgments represented a double-edged sword. On the one hand, participants lost confidence in the robot’s competence when the robot was following their advice; on the other hand, participants were unwilling to disclose their lack of confidence to the susceptible robot, suggesting the emergence of reciprocal mechanisms of social influence supporting human-robot collaboration.

show abstract

The Ripple Effects of Vulnerability

Cited by 103 publications

References 30 publications

Empathic Robot for Group Learning

Empathic Robot for Group Learning

Long-Term Value of Social Robots through the Eyes of Expert Users

The role of reciprocity in human-robot social influence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About