'Give me a hug': The effects of touch and autonomy on people's responses to embodied social agents

Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds

Volumn 20, Issue 2-3, 2009, Pages 437-445

  Cramer, Henriette ^a   Kemper, Nicander ^a   Amin, Alia ^a   Wielinga, Bob ^a   Evers, Vanessa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Autonomy; Human robot interaction; Proactive behaviour; Social agents; Social behaviour; Touch

Indexed keywords

AUTONOMY; HUMAN-ROBOT INTERACTION; PROACTIVE BEHAVIOUR; SOCIAL AGENTS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR; TOUCH;

MAN MACHINE SYSTEMS;

ROBOTS;

EID: 67749106565     PISSN: 15464261     EISSN: 1546427X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cav.317     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Bickmore TW. Relational agents: effecting change through human-computer relationships. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003.
2. Reeves B, Nass C. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
3. Parasuraman R, Miller C. Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Communications of the ACM 2004; 47(4): 51-55.
4. MacDorman KE Subjective ratings of robot video clips for human likeness, familiarity and eeriness: an exploration of the uncanny valley. In Proceedings Conference on Cognitive Science Workshop on Android Science, Vancouver, Canada, 2006.
5. Kim T, Hinds PJ. Who should I blame? Effects of autonomy and transparency on attributions in HRI. In Proceedings RO-MAN'06, 2006; 80-85.
6. Lee KM, Jung Y, Kim J, Kim SR. Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2006; 64(10): 962-973.
7. Fisher JD, Rytting M, Heslin R. Hands touching hands. Sociometry 1976; 39(4): 416-421.
8. Patterson ML, Powell JL, Lenihan MG. Touch, compliance, and interpersonal affect. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 1986; 10(1): 41-50.
9. Willis FN Jr, Hamm HK. The use of interpersonal touch in securing compliance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 1980; 5(1): 49-55.
10. Gueguen N. Touch, awareness of touch, and compliance with a request. Perceptual and Motor Skills 2002; 95(2): 355-360.
11. Shiloh S, Sorek G, Terkel J. Reduction of state-anxiety by petting animals in a controlled laboratory experiment. Anxiety, Stress & Coping 2003; 16(4): 387-395.
12. Ishii H, Ullmer B. Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings CHI'97, 1997; 234-241.
13. Stiehl WD, Lieberman J, Breazeal C, et al. The huggable: a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In Proceedings CCNC'06, 2006.
14. Yohanan S, MacLean KE. The haptic creature project: social human-robot interaction through affective touch. In Proceedings AISB'08, 2008; 7-11.
15. Major B, Heslin R. Perceptions of cross-sex and samesex non-reciprocal touch: it is better to give than to receive. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 1982; 6(3): 148-162.
16. Tapus A, Mataric M. Socially assistive robots: the link between personality, empathy, physiological signals, and task performance. In AAAI Spring 08, 2008.
17. Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R, et al. The influence of subjects' personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment. In Proceedings RO-MAN'05, 2005; 347-352.
18. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K. Psychology in H-R communication. In Proceedings RO-MAN'04, 2004; 35-40.
19. Schrempf O, Schmid A, Hanebeck U, Wörn H. A novel approach to proactive human-robot cooperation. In Proceedings RO-MAN'05, 2005.
20. Salovaara A, Oulasvirta A. Six modes of proactive resource management: a user-centric typology for proactive behaviors. In Proceedings Nordi CHI'04, 2004.
21. Cheverst K, Mitchell K, Davies N. Investigating context-aware information push vs. information pull to tourists. In Mobile HCI'01, 2001.
22. Höök K. Evaluating the utility and usability of an adaptive hypermedia system. In Proceedings IUI'97, 1997; 179-186.
23. Jameson A, Schwarzkopf E. Pros and cons of controllability: an empirical study. In Proceedings AH'02, 2002; 193-202.
24. Castelfranchi C, Falcone R. Trust and control: a dialectic link. Applied Artificial Intelligence 2000; 14(8): 799-823.
25. Desmond P, Hancock PA, Monette J. Fatigue and automation-induced impairments in simulated driving performance. Transportation Research Record 1998; 1628: 8-14.
26. Lohse M, Hegel F, Swadzba A, Rohlfing K, Wachsmuth S, Wrede B. What cani do for you? Appearance and application of robots. In Proceedings AISB'07, 2007.
27. Woods S, Walters ML, Koay KL, Dautenhahn K. Methodological issues in hri: a comparison of live and video-based methods in robot to human approach direction trials. In Proceedings RO-MAN'06, 2006; 51-58.
28. Breazeal C, Berlin M, Brooks A, Gray J, Thomaz AL. Using perspective taking to learn from ambiguous demonstrations. Robotics & Autonomous Systems 2006; 54(5): 385-393.
29. Evers V, Maldonado H, Brodecki T, Hinds P. Relational vs. group self-construal: untangling the role of national culture in hri. In Proceedings HRI'08, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2008; 255-262.
30. Aron A, Aron EN, Smollan D. Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1992; 63: 596-612.
31. Hinds PJ, Roberts TL, Jones H. Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human-Computer Interaction 2004; 19(1): 151-181.