Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion (original) (raw)

References

• Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 387–395.
  Article Google Scholar
• Asquith, P. J. (1997). Why anthropomorphism is not metaphor: crossing concepts and cultures in animal behavior studies. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes and animals (pp. 22–34). Albany: State University of New York Press.
  Google Scholar
• Ball, G., & Breese, J. (2000). Emotion and personality in a conversational agent. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  Google Scholar
• Bethal, C. L., & Murphy, R. R. (2006). Affective expression in appearance-constrained robots. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI/SIGART 2nd conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’06) (pp. 327–328), Salt Lake City, Utah, US.
• Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 645–657.
  Article Google Scholar
• Breazeal, C. L. (2002). Designing sociable robots. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  Google Scholar
• Brenton, H., Gillies, M., Ballin, D., & Chattin, D. (2005). The uncanny valley: does it exist? In Proceedings of conference of human computer interaction, workshop on human animated character interaction, Napier University, Edinburgh. Available online at: http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/cogsys/workshop/program.html.
• Bruce, A., Nourbakhsh, I., & Simmons, R. (2002). The role of expressiveness and attention in human–robot interaction. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2002) (pp. 4138–4143), Washington DC, USA.
• Burgoon, J.K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Human Communication Research, 2(2), 131–146.
  Article Google Scholar
• Dautenhahn, K. (2002). Design spaces and niche spaces of believable social robots. In Proceedings of the 11th annual international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 02) (pp. 192–197), Berlin, Germany.
• Dautenhahn, K. (2004) Robots We like to live with?—A developmental perspective on a personalized, life-long robot companion. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2004) (pp. 17–22).
• Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S. N., Kaouri, C., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., & Werry, I. (2005). What is a robot companion—friend, assistant or butler? In Proceedings of IEEE RSJ international conference on intelligent robot systems (IROS’05) (pp. 1488–1493), Edmonton, Canada.
• Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M. L., Woods, S. N., Koay, K. L., Nehaniv, C. L., Sisbot, E. A., et al. (2006). How may I serve you? A robot companion approaching a seated person in a helping context. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI/SIGART 2nd conference on human robot interaction (HRI ’06) (pp. 172–179), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
• Davis, H. (1997). Animal cognition versus animal thinking: the anthropomorphic. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  Google Scholar
• Deaux, K., Dane, F. C., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1993). Social psychology in the ’90s (6th ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
  Google Scholar
• Dryer, D. C. (1999). Getting personal with computers: how to design personalities for agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(3), 273–295.
  Article Google Scholar
• Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 177–190.
  Article MATH Google Scholar
• Ferber, D. (2003). The man who mistook his girlfriend for a robot. Popular Science, September 2003.
• Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(4-3), 143–166.
  Article MATH Google Scholar
• Friedman, B., Khan, P. H. & Hagman, J. (2003). Hardware companions?—What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human–robotic relationship. In Proceedings of the CHI 2003 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 273–279), Ft Lauderdale, Florida, USA.
• Gill, A. J., Oberlander, J., & Austin, E. (2006). Rating e-mail personality at zero acquaintance. Personality and Individual-Differences, 40(3), 497–507.
  Article Google Scholar
• Gillespie, D. L., & Leffler, A. (1983). Theories of nonverbal behavior: a critical review of proxemics research. Sociological Theory, 1, 120–154.
  Article Google Scholar
• Gockley, R. Matarić, M. (2006). Encouraging physical therapy compliance with a handsoff mobile robot. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI/SIGART 2nd conference on human robot interaction (HRI ’06) (pp. 150–155), Salt Lake City, USA.
• Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., & Powers, A. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human–robot cooperation. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (pp. 55–60), Berkeley, CA, USA.
• Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7–28.
  Google Scholar
• Gong, L., & Nass, C. (2007). When a talking-face computer agent is half-human and half-humanoid: human identity and consistency preference. Journal of Human Communication Research, 33(2), 163–193.
  Google Scholar
• Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
  Google Scholar
• Hall, E. T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 9(2-3), 83–108.
  Article Google Scholar
• Hanson, D. (2006). Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots. In Proceedings of cognitive science (CogSci 2006) workshop on android science (pp. 16–20), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
• Hanson, D., Olney, A., Pereira, I. A. & Zielke, M. (2005). Upending the uncanny valley. In Proceedings of the American association for artificial intelligence (AAII) conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
• Hinds, P. J., Roberts, T. L., & Jones, H. (2004). Whose job is it anyway? A study of human–robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human–Computer Interaction, 19, 151–181.
  Article Google Scholar
• Ishiguro, H. (2007). Scientific issues concerning androids. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 26, 101–117.
  Article Google Scholar
• Kanda, T., Hirano, T., & Eaton, D. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Human–Computer Interaction, 19, 61–84.
  Article Google Scholar
• Kanda, T., Kamasima, M., Imai, M., Ono, T., Sakamoto, D., Ishiguro, H., & Anzai, Y. (2007). A humanoid robot that pretends to listen to route guidance from a human. Autonomous Robots, 22(1), 87–100.
  Article Google Scholar
• Khan, Z. (1998). Attitudes towards intelligent service robots (Technical report). IPLab, NADA, Royal Institute of Technology. TRITA-NA-E98421, IPLab-154.
• Kiesler, S., & Goetz, J. (2000). Machine trait scales for evaluating mechanistic mental models of robots and computer-based machines. White paper, www.peopleandrobots.org/hri/images/Machine_scales.pdf. Site last accessed January 2007.
• Koay, K. L., Syrdal, D. S., Walters, M. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2007, in press). Living with robots: investigating the habituation effect in participants’ preferences during a longitudinal human–robot interaction study. In IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN07) (pp. 564–569), Jeju Island, Korea.
• Lambert, D. (2004). Body language. New York: HarperCollins.
  Google Scholar
• Lee, S., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Human mental models of humanoid robots. In Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 05) (pp. 2767–2772), Barcelona, Spain.
• Li, S., Wrede, B., & Sagerer, G. (2006). A dialog system for comparative user studies on robot verbal behavior. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN06) (pp. 129–134).
• Luczak, H., Roetting, M., & Schmidt, L. (2003). Let’s talk: anthropomorphization as means to cope with stress of interacting with technical devices. Ergonomics, 46(13/14), 1361–1374.
  Article Google Scholar
• MacDorman, K. F. (2005). Androids as an experimental apparatus: why is there an uncanny valley and can we exploit it? In Proceedings of the CogSci 2005 workshop: toward social mechanisms of android science (pp. 106–118), Stresa, Italy (2003).
• MacDorman, K., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 297–337.
  Article Google Scholar
• Minato, T., Shimada, M., Ishiguro, H., & Itakura, S. (2004a). Development of an android robot for studying human–robot interaction, innovations in applied artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on industrial and engineering applications of artificial intelligence and expert systems (IEA/AIE 04) (pp. 424–434).
• Minato, T., MacDorman, K. F., Shimada, M., Itakura, S., Lee, K., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Evaluating humanlikeness by comparing responses elicited by an android and a person. In Proceedings of the second international workshop on man-machine symbiotic systems (pp. 373–383), Kyoto, Japan.
• Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi no tani (The uncanny valley). Energy, 7(4), 33–35.
  Google Scholar
• Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B. J., & Reeves, B. (1995a). Can computer personalities be human personalities? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 43(2), 223–239.
  Article Google Scholar
• Nass, C. I., Lombard, M., Henriksen, L., & Steuer, J. (1995b). Anthropocentrism and computers. Behaviour and Information Technology, 14(4), 229–238.
  Article Google Scholar
• Norman, D. (2001). How might humans interact with robots. In Keynote address to the DARPA/NSF workshop on human–robot interaction. San Luis Obispo, CA.
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  Google Scholar
• Sabanovic, S., Michalowski, M. P., & Caporael, L. R., (2007). Making friends: building social robots through interdisciplinary collaboration. In Multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics: papers from the AAAI spring symposium (Technical Report SS-07-07) (pp. 71–77).
• Scopelliti, M., Giuliani, M. V., D’Amico, A. M., & Fornara, F. (2004). If I had a robot at home…. Peoples’ representation of domestic robot. In S. Keates, J. Clarkson, P. Langdon, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Designing a more inclusive world (pp. 257–266).
• Severinson-Eklundh, K., Green, A., & Huutenrauch, H. (2003). Social and/colaborative aspects of interaction with a service robot. Robotics and Autonomous systems, 42, 223–234.
  Article MATH Google Scholar
• Stratton, L. O., Tekippe, D. J., & Flick, G. L. (1973). Personal space and self concept. Sociometry, 36, 424–429.
  Article Google Scholar
• Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S. N., Walters, M. L., & Koay, K. L. (2006). 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-MAN06) (pp. 183–188), University of Hertfordshire, UK.
• Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Walters, M., & Koay, K. L. (2007a). Looking good? Appearance preferences and robot personality inferences at zero acquaintance. In Multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics: papers from the AAAI spring symposium. (Technical Report SS-07-07: 86-92).
• Syrdal, D. S., Koay, K.-L., Walters, M. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2007b). A personalised robot companion? The role of individual differences on spatial preferences in HRI scenarios. In IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN07) (pp. 26–29), Jeju Island, Korea.
• Tapus, A., & Matarić, M. J. (2006). User personality matching with hands-off robot for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. In Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on experimental robotics (ISER-06), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
• te Boekhorst, R., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., Dautenhahn, K., & Nehaniv, C. L. (2005). A study of a single robot interacting with groups of children in a rotation game scenario. In Proceedings of IEEE CIRA 2005 (pp. 35–40), Espoo, Finland.
• Walters, M. L., Woods, S. N., Koay, K. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2005a). Practical and methodological challenges in designing and conducting human–robot interaction studies. In Proceedings of the AISB’05 symposium on robot companions hard problems and open challenges in human–robot interaction (pp. 110–119), UK.
• Walters, M. L., Dautenhahn, K., Koay, K. L., Kaouri, C., te Boekhorst, R., Nehaniv, C. L., Werry, I., & Lee, D. (2005b). Close encounters: spatial distances between people and a robot of mechanistic appearance. In Proceedings of IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots (Humanoids2005) (pp. 450–455), Tsukuba, Japan
• Walters, M. L., Dautenhahn, K., te Boekhorst, R., Koay, K. L., Kaouri, C., Woods, S. N., Nehaniv, C. L., Lee, D., & Werry, I. (2005c). The influence of subjects’personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human–robot interaction experiment. In Proceedings of IEEE Ro-man 2005, 14th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RoMan05) (pp. 347–352), Nashville, USA.
• Walters, M. L., Dautenhahn, K., te Boekhorst, R., & Koay, K. L. (2007). Exploring the design space of robot appearance and behavior in an attention-seeking ‘living room’ scenario for a robot companion. In Proceedings of IEEE artificial life (Alife 07) (pp. 341–347), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
• Woods, S. N., Dautenhahn, K., & Schulz, J. (2004). The design space of robots: investigating children’s views. In Proceedings of 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 04) (pp. 47–52), Kurashiki, Okayama Japan.
• Woods, S. N., Dautenhahn, K., & Kaouri, C. (2005). Is someone watching me? Consideration of social facilitation effects in human–robot interaction experiments. In Proceedings of 2005 IEEE international symposium on computational intelligence in robotics and automation (CIRA 2005) (pp. 53–60), Espoo, Finland.
• Woods, S. N., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2006a). Comparing human robot interaction scenarios using live and video based methods: towards a novel methodological approach. In Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on advanced motion control (AMC’06) (pp. 750–755), Istanbul, Turkey.
• Woods, S. N., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2006b). Methodological issues in HRI: a comparison of live and video-based methods in robot to human approach direction trials. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN06) (pp. 51–58), Hertfordshire, UK.
• Woods, S. N., Dautenhahn, K., Kaouri, C., te Boekhorst, R., Koay, K. L., & Walters, M. L. (2007). Are robots like people?—Relationships between participant and robot personality traits in human–robot interaction. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 281–305.
  Article Google Scholar
• Yan, C., Peng, W., Lee, K. M., & Jin, S. (2004). Can robots have personality? An empirical study of personality manifestation, social responses, and social presence in human–robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 54th annual conference of the international communication association. Online at: www.allacademic.com/meta/p112661_index.html.
• Zebrowitz, L. A., Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Rhodes, G. (2004). Looking smart and looking good: facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 238–249.
  Article Google Scholar

Download references