Abstract
Appropriate human likeness for social robots is said to increase trust and acceptance. Whether this applies to human communication features like dialog initiative needs to be investigated. Dialog initiative could be unacceptable for a robot, depending on the dialog content. Hence, the presented study investigates how a social robot’s proactive verbal and non-verbal communication behavior affects trust and acceptance depending on dialog content and content presentation order. A laboratory study (n = 31) with a humanoid robot was conducted. Talk initiative (human/robot) and the robot’s gaze behavior (directed/random) were manipulated. Dialog content was alternated between a service task and small talk. The subject’s trust, acceptance and human-robot proximity were assessed. Whereas a directed gaze was perceived as more humanlike and was more accepted during small talk, no gaze preference for the service task emerged. There was no preference for who initiated the small talk but for the service task, robot initiative led to higher trust in the robot when the service task was the first interaction. Participant’s self-reported trust in the robot was associated with the distance they kept to the robot. Different gaze and proactive strategies seem to be efficient to foster trust and acceptance in social robots for different dialog contents and thus should be considered when designing interaction strategies for social robots.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Admoni H, Scassellati B (2017) Social Eye Gaze in Human-Robot Interaction: A Review. J Human-Robot Interaction 6(1):25
Aliasghari P, Taheri A, Meghdari A, Maghsoodi E (2020) Implementing a gaze control system on a social robot in multi-person interactions. SN Appl Sci p 1135, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2911-0
Argyle M, Dean J (1965) Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry pp 289–304
Argyle M, Ingham R (1972) Gaze, Mutual Gaze, and Proximity. J Int Assoc Semiot Stud 6(1):32–49
Bailenson JN, Blascovich J, Beall AC, Loomis JM (2003) Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality Soc Psychol Bull 29(7):819–833
Bangalore S, Fabbrizio GD, Stent A (2006) Learning the Structure of Task-Driven Human-Human Dialogs. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp 201–208
Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):71–81
Bickmore T, Cassell J (1999) Small talk and conversational storytelling in embodied conversational interface agents. In: AAAI fall symposium on narrative intelligence, pp 87–92
Bickmore TW, Picard RW (2005) Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Trans Comput-Human Interaction 12(2):293–327
Blanca JM, Alarcon R, Bono R, Bendayan R (2017) Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema 4(29):552–557. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.383
Buck JW, Perugini S, Nguyen TV (2018) Natural language, mixed-initiative personal assistant agents. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on ubiquitous information management and communication, ACM, p 82
Burgess JW (1983) Interpersonal spacing behavior between surrounding nearest neighbors reflects both familiarity and environmental density. Ethol Sociobiol 4(1):11–17
Capurro R. (2019) Ethical Issues of Humanoid-Human Interaction. In: Goswami A., Vadakkepat P. (eds) Humanoid Robotics: A Reference. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6046-2_127
Choi JJ, Kim Y, Kwak SS (2013) Have you ever lied?: the impacts of gaze avoidance on people’s perception of a robot. In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), IEEE, pp 105–106
Clodic A, Alami R, Montreuil V, Li S, Wrede B, Swadzba A (2007) A study of interaction between dialog and decision for human-robot collaborative task achievement. In: Proceedings - IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 913–918
Cristani M, Paggetti G, Vinciarelli A, Bazzani L, Menegaz G, Murino V (2011) Towards computational proxemics: Inferring social relations from interpersonal distances. In: 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE third international conference on social computing, IEEE, pp 290–297
Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philos Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 362(1480):679–704
Doran C, Aberdeen J, Damianos L, Hirschman L (2007) Comparing several aspects of human-computer and human-human dialogues. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–10
Endrass B, Rehm M, André E (2011) Planning small talk behavior with cultural influences for multiagent systems. Comput Speech Lang 25(2):158–174
Eresha G, Haring M, Endrass B, Andre E, Obaid M (2013) Investigating the influence of culture on proxemic behaviors for humanoid robots. Proceedings - IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication pp 430–435
Fink J (2012) Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 7621 LNAI:199–208
Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Autonom Syst 42(3–4):143–166
Garau M, Slater M, Bee S, Sasse MA (2001) The impact of eye gaze on communication using humanoid avatars. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 309–316
Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In: The 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003., Ieee, pp 55–60
Gong L (2008) How social is social responses to computers? the function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Comput Human Behavior 24(4):1494–1509
Gravano A, Hirschberg J (2011) Turn-taking cues in task-oriented dialogue. Comput Speech Lang 25(3):601–634
Hall ET (1974) Handbook for proxemic research. Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication
Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JY, De Visser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors 53(5):517–527
Haring KS, Matsumoto Y, Watanabe K (2013) How do people perceive and trust a lifelike robot. Proc World Congr Eng Comput Sci I:23–25
Henkel Z, Bethel CL, Murphy RR, Srinivasan V (2014) Evaluation of proxemic scaling functions for social robotics. IEEE Trans Human-Machine Syst 44(3):374–385
Hoff KA, Bashir M (2015) Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum Factors 57(3):407–434
Jan D, Herrera D, Martinovski B, Novick D, Traum D (2007) A computational model of culture-specific conversational behavior. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics) 4722 LNCS:45–56, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74997-4_5
Jarrassé N, Sanguineti V, Burdet E (2014) Slaves no longer: Review on role assignment for human-robot joint motor action. Adapt Behavior 22(1):70–82
Jian JY, Bisantz AM, Drury CG (2000) Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. Int J Cogn Ergonom 4(1):53–71
Karrer K, Glaser C, Clemens C, Bruder C (2009) Technikaffinität erfassen - der Fragebogen TA-EG. Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme 8:196–201
Kleinke CL (1968) Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychol Bull 100(I):78–100
Koay KL, Dautenhahn K, Woods S, Walters ML (2006) Empirical results from using a comfort level device in human-robot interaction studies. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction, ACM, pp 194–201
Koda T, Hirano T, Ishioh T (2017) Development and perception evaluation of culture-specific gaze behaviors of virtual agents. In: International conference on intelligent virtual agents, Springer, pp 213–222
Kraus JM (2020) Psychological processes in the formation and calibration of trust in automation. Dissertation Ulm University. https://doi.org/10.18725/OPARU-32583
Kraus JM, Nothdurft F, Hock P, Scholz D, Minker W, Baumann M (2016) Human after all: Effects of mere presence and social interaction of a humanoid robot as a co-driver in automated driving. In: Adjunct proceedings of the 8th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, ACM, New York, NY, USA, AutomotiveUI ’16 Adjunct, pp 129–134
Kraus M, Kraus J, Baumann M, Minker W (2018) Effects of gender stereotypes on trust and likability in spoken human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC (2018) european language resources association (ELRA). Miyazaki, Japan
Kraus, J., Scholz, D., & Baumann, M. (2020) What’s driving me? - Exploration and validation of a hierarchical personality model for trust in automated driving. Human Factors. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820922653
Lambert, D. (2004) Body language. New York: HarperCollins
Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Human Fact: J Human Fact Ergonom Soc 46(1):50–80
Lee MK, Makatchev M (2009) How do people talk with a robot? Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI EA ’09 p 3769
Leichtmann, B., & Nitsch, V. (2020). How much distance do humans keep toward robots? Literature review, meta-analysis, and theoretical considerations on personal space in human-robot interaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101386
Looije R, Neerincx MA, Cnossen F (2010) Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: design and evaluation of social behaviors. Int J Human-Comput Stud 68(6):386–397
Madsen M, Gregor S (2000) Measuring human-computer trust. In: 11th australasian conference on information systems, Citeseer, vol 53, pp 6–8
Matthews G, Lin J, Panganiban AR, Long MD (2020) Individual differences in trust in autonomous robots: implications for transparency. IEEE Trans Human-Mach Syst 50(3):234–244
Mavridis N (2015) A review of verbal and non-verbal human-robot interactive communication. Robot Autonom Syst 63:22–35
Merritt SM, Heimbaugh H, LaChapell J, Lee D (2013) I trust it, but i don’t know why: Effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Human Factors 55(3):520–534
Mumm, J., & Mutlu, B. (2011, March). Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction (pp. 331–338)
Miller L, Kraus J, Babel F, Baumann M (2020a) More than a feeling - interrelation of different trust layers in human-robot interaction and effects of user dispositions and state anxiety. [Manuscript submitted for publication]
Miller L, Kraus J, Babel F, Messner M, Baumann M (2020b) Come closer: Experimental investigation of robots’ appearance on proximity, affect and trust in a domestic environment. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (HFES 2020)
Niculescu A, van Dijk B, Nijholt A, Li H, See SL (2013) Making social robots more attractive: the effects of voice pitch, humor and empathy. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):171–191
Nomura T, Kanda T (2015) Influences of evaluation and gaze from a robot and humans’ fear of negative evaluation on their preferences of the robot. Int J Soc Robot 7(2):155–164
Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K (2008) Prediction of human behavior in human-robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots. IEEE Trans Robot 24(2):442–451
Normoyle A, Badler JB, Fan T, Badler NI, Cassol VJ, Musse SR (2013) Evaluating perceived trust from procedurally animated gaze. In: Proceedings of motion on games, ACM, pp 141–148
Oleson KE, Billings DR, Kocsis V, Chen JY, Hancock PA (2011) Antecedents of trust in human-robot collaborations. In: 2011 IEEE international multi-disciplinary conference on cognitive methods in situation awareness and decision support (CogSIMA), IEEE, pp 175–178
Paradeda RB, Hashemian M, Rodrigues RA, Paiva A (2016) How facial expressions and small talk may influence trust in a robot. In: International conference on social robotics, Springer, pp 169–178
Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors 39(2):230–253
Petrak B, Weitz K, Aslan I, Andre E (2019) Let Me Show You Your New Home: Studying the Effect of Proxemic-awareness of Robots on Users’ First Impressions. In (2019) 28th IEEE international conference robot human interactive communications RO-MAN 2019: doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956463
Prabhakaran V, Rambow O (2013) Written dialog and social power: Manifestations of different types of power in dialog behavior. In: Proceedings of the sixth international joint conference on natural language processing, pp 216–224
Reeves B, Nass CI (1996) The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Reinhardt J, Pereira A, Beckert D, Bengler K (2017) Dominance and movement cues of robot motion: A user study on trust and predictability. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC), IEEE, pp 1493–1498
Riek LD (2012) Wizard of oz studies in hri: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. J Human-Robot Interaction 1(1):119–136
Salem M, Eyssel F, Rohlfing K, Kopp S, Joublin F (2013a) To err is human (-like): Effects of robot gesture on perceived anthropomorphism and likability. Int J Soc Robotics 5(3):313–323
Salem M, Ziadee M, Sakr M (2013b) Effects of politeness and interaction context on perception and experience of hri. In: International conference on social robotics, Springer, pp 531–541
Sanders T, Oleson KE, Billings DR, Chen JY, Hancock PA (2011) A model of human-robot trust: Theoretical model development. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society pp 1432–1436, arXiv:1011.1669v3
Saunderson S, Nejat G (2019) How robots influence humans: a survey of nonverbal communication in social human-robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 11(4):575–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00523-0
Stanton C, Stevens C (2014) Robot pressure: The impact of robot eye gaze and lifelike bodily movements upon decision-making and trust. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 8755:330–339
Stanton CJ, Stevens C (2017) Don’t stare at me: the impact of a humanoid robot’s Gaze upon trust during a cooperative human-robot visual task. Int J Soc Robotics 9(5):745–753
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, vol 5. Pearson Boston, MA
Takayama L, Pantofaru C (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. 2009 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, IROS 2009 pp 5495–5502
Van Der Laan JD, Heino A, De Waard D (1997) A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transp Res Part C: Emerging Technol 5(1):1–10
von Zitzewitz J, Boesch PM, Wolf P, Riener R (2013) Quantifying the human likeness of a humanoid robot. Int J Soc Robotics 5(2):263–276
Walters M (2009) An Empirical Framework for Human-Robot Proxemics. In: Proceedings of new frontiers in human-robot interaction: symposium at the AISB09 convention, pp 144–149
Walters ML, Oskoei MA, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K (2011) A long-term Human-Robot Proxemic study. In: Proceeding of IEEE international work robot human interactive communications pp 137–142, https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2011.6005274
Waytz A, Heafner J, Epley N (2014) The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J Exp Soc Psychol 52:113–117
Zaraki A, Mazzei D, Giuliani M, De Rossi D (2014) Designing and evaluating a social gaze-control system for a humanoid robot. IEEE Trans Human-Mach Syst 44(2):157–168
Funding
The co-author Matthias Kraus has received funding by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and Robert Bosch GmbH.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
See Appendix Table 4.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Babel, F., Kraus, J., Miller, L. et al. Small Talk with a Robot? The Impact of Dialog Content, Talk Initiative, and Gaze Behavior of a Social Robot on Trust, Acceptance, and Proximity. Int J of Soc Robotics 13, 1485–1498 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00730-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00730-0