skip to main content
10.1145/3434074.3446910acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Boosting Robot Credibility and Challenging Gender Norms in Responding to Abusive Behaviour: A Case for Feminist Robots

Published:08 March 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Inspired by the recent UNESCO report I'd Blush if I Could, we tackle some of the issues regarding gendered AI through exploring the impact of feminist social robot behaviour on human-robot interaction. Specifically we consider (i) use of a social robot to encourage girls to consider studying robotics (and expression of feminist sentiment in this context), (ii) if/how robots should respond to abusive, and antifeminist sentiment and (iii) how ('female') robots can be designed to challenge current gender-based norms of expected behaviour. We demonstrate that whilst there are complex interactions between robot, user and observer gender, we were able to increase girls' perceptions of robot credibility and reduce gender bias in boys. We suggest our work provides positive evidence for going against current digital assistant/traditional human gender-based norms, and the future role robots might have in reducing our gender biases.

References

  1. Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1301--1310. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753521Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. De'Aira Bryant, Jason Borenstein, and Ayanna Howard. 2020. Why Should We Gender? The Effect of Robot Gendering and Occupational Stereotypes on Human Trust and Perceived Competency. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 13--21. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3319502.3374778Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. R. Crowelly, M. Villanoy, M. Scheutzz, and P. Schermerhornz. 2009. Gendered voice and robot entities: Perceptions and reactions of male and female subjects. In 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 3735--3741. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2009.5354204 ISSN: 2153-0866.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein. 2020. Data Feminism. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: x5nSDwAAQBAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cristina Díaz-García, Angela González-Moreno, and Francisco Jose Sáez-Martínez. 2013. Gender diversity within R&D teams: Its impact on radicalness of innovation. Innovation 15, 2 (2013), 149--160. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2013.15.2.149Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Chad Edwards and Scott A. Myers. 2007. Perceived Instructor Credibility as a Function of Instructor Aggressive Communication. Communication Research Reports 24, 1 (Feb. 2007), 47--53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090601128141 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090601128141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Friederike Eyssel and Frank Hegel. 2012. (S)he's Got the Look: Gender Stereotyping of Robots1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42, 9 (2012), 2213--2230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00937.x _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1559--1816.2012.00937.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Marina Fridin and Mark Belokopytov. 2014. Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers. Computers in Human Behavior 33 (April 2014), 23--31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.016Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Robert H. Gass and John S. Seiter. 2015. Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining. Routledge. Google-Books-ID: qvMvCgAAQBAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Aimi Shazwani Ghazali, Jaap Ham, Emilia Barakova, and Panos Markopoulos. 2019. Assessing the effect of persuasive robots interactive social cues on users' psychological reactance, liking, trusting beliefs and compliance: Advanced Robotics: Vol 33, No 7--8. Advanced Robotics 33 (2019), 325--337. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01691864.2019.1589570Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Dominic A. Infante. 1987. Arguing Constructively. Waveland Press. GoogleBooks-ID: zXoYAAAAQBAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Dominic A. Infante and Andrew S. Rancer. 1982. A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment 46, 1 (Feb. 1982), 72--80. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13 Publisher: Routledge_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. R. B. Jackson and T. Williams. 2019. Language-Capable Robots may Inadvertently Weaken Human Moral Norms. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 401--410. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019. 8673123 ISSN: 2167--2148.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ryan Blake Jackson, Tom Williams, and Nicole Smith. 2020. Exploring the Role of Gender in Perceptions of Robotic Noncompliance. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 559--567. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374831Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Dieta Kuchenbrandt, Markus Häring, Jessica Eichberg, Friederike Eyssel, and Elisabeth André. 2014. Keep an Eye on the Task! How Gender Typicality of Tasks Influence Human--Robot Interactions. International Journal of Social Robotics 6, 3 (Aug. 2014), 417--427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0244-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Johanna Mellén and Petra Angervall. 2020. Gender and choice: differentiating options in Swedish upper secondary STEM programmes. Journal of Education Policy (2020), 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sara Mills. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge University Press. GoogleBooks-ID: ngnddB7tXw8C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. National Education Union and UKFEMINISTA. 2019. "It's just everywhere" A study on sexism in schools and how we tackle it. Technical Report. https://unesdoc. unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367416.page=1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Tatsuya Nomura. 2016. Robots and Gender. Gender and the Genome 1, 1 (Dec. 2016), 18--25. https://doi.org/10.1089/gg.2016.29002.nom Publisher: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Ylva Odenbring and Thomas Johansson. 2019. Tough-Girl Femininity, Sisterhood and Respectability: Minority Girls' Perceptions of Sexual Harassment in an Urban Secondary School. NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 27, 4 (Oct. 2019), 258--270. https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.2019.1653967 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.2019.1653967.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Gijsbert Stoet and David C Geary. 2018. The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological science 29, 4 (2018), 581--593.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Amanda Sullivan and Marina Umaschi Bers. 2019. Investigating the use of robotics to increase girls' interest in engineering during early elementary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 29, 5 (2019), 1033--1051.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Mark West, Rebecca Kraut, and Han Ei Chew. 2019. I'd blush if I could: closing gender divides in digital skills through education. Technical Report. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367416.page=1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. K. Winkle, S. Lemaignan, P. Caleb-Solly, U. Leonards, A. Turton, and P. Bremner. 2019. Effective Persuasion Strategies for Socially Assistive Robots. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 277--285. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673313Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Hongjun Ye, Haeyoung Jeong, Wenting Zhong, Siddharth Bhatt, Kurtulus Izzetoglu, Hasan Ayaz, and Rajneesh Suri. 2020. The Effect of Anthropomorphization and Gender of a Robot on Human-Robot Interactions. In Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering (Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing), Hasan Ayaz (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 357--362. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20473-0_34Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Elisabet Öhrn. 2009. Challenging Sexism? Gender and Ethnicity in the Secondary School. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 53, 6 (Dec. 2009), 579--590. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830903302091 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830903302091.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Boosting Robot Credibility and Challenging Gender Norms in Responding to Abusive Behaviour: A Case for Feminist Robots

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      HRI '21 Companion: Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
      March 2021
      756 pages
      ISBN:9781450382908
      DOI:10.1145/3434074
      • General Chairs:
      • Cindy Bethel,
      • Ana Paiva,
      • Program Chairs:
      • Elizabeth Broadbent,
      • David Feil-Seifer,
      • Daniel Szafir

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 March 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate192of519submissions,37%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader