Designing persuasive robots: How robots might persuade people using vocal and nonverbal cues

HRI'12 - Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 293-300

  Chidambaram, Vijay ^a   Chiang, Yueh Hsuan ^a   Mutlu, Bilge ^a  

^a University of Wisconsin Madison   (United States)

Author keywords

compliance; gaze; gestures; nonverbal cues; nonverbal immediacy; persuasion; proximity; vocal tone

Indexed keywords

COMPLIANCE; GAZE; GESTURES; NONVERBAL CUES; NONVERBAL IMMEDIACY; PERSUASION; PROXIMITY; VOCAL TONE;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; HUMAN ROBOT INTERACTION; MAN MACHINE SYSTEMS; NUTRITION;

MACHINE DESIGN;

EID: 84859970256     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2157689.2157798     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (53)

1. J. Andersen. Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. Communication yearbook, 3(543-559), 1979.
2. J. Bailenson, A. Beall, J. Loomis, J. Blascovich, and M. Turk. Transformed social interaction, augmented gaze, and social influence in immersive virtual environments. Human Communication Research, 31(4):511-537, 2005. (Pubitemid 41442745)
3. J. Bailenson and N. Yee. Digital chameleons. Psychological Science, 16(10):814, 2005.
4. J. Bradac, J. Bowers, and J. Courtright. Three language variables in communication research: Intensity, immediacy, and diversity. Human Communication Research, 5(3):257-269, 1979.
5. C. Breazeal, C. Kidd, A. Thomaz, G. Hoffman, and M. Berlin. Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2005.(IROS 2005). 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pages 708-713. IEEE, 2005.
6. R. Bull and E. Gibson-Robinson. The influences of eye-gaze, style of dress, and locality on the amounts of money donated to a charity. Human Relations, 34(10):895, 1981.
7. D. Buller and R. Aune. The Effects of Vocalics and Nonverbal Sensitivity on Compliance A Speech Accommodation Theory Explanation. Human Communication Research, 14(3):301-332, 1988.
8. D. Buller and J. Burgoon. The Effects of Vocalics and Nonverbal Sensitivity on Compliance A Replication and Extension. Human Communication Research, 13(1):126-144, 1986.
9. J. Burgoon, N. Dunbar, and C. Segrin. Nonverbal influence. The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice, pages 445-473, 2002.
10. T. Chartrand and J. Bargh. The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76:893-910, 1999.
11. D. Christophel. The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39(4):323-340, 1990.
12. D. Christophel and J. Gorham. A test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44(4):292-306, 1995.
13. K. Dautenhahn. Robots as social actors: Aurora and the case of autism. In Proc. CT99, The Third International Cognitive Technology Conference, August, San Francisco, pages 359-374, 1999.
14. B. Fogg. Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI '98, pages 225-232, New York, NY, USA, 1998. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
15. B. Fogg. Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity, 2002(December):2, 2002.
16. P. Glick, J. Demorest, and C. Hotze. Keeping Your Distance: Group Membership, Personal Space, and Requests for Small Favors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(4):315-330, 1988.
17. E. Goffman. Behavior in public places, 1969.
18. S. Goldin-Meadow. Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Belknap Press, 2005.
19. J. Gorham. The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37(1):40-53, 1988.
20. R. Guadagno, J. Blascovich, J. Bailenson, and C. Mccall. Virtual humans and persuasion: The effects of agency and behavioral realism. Media Psychology, 10(1):1-22, 2007.
21. G. Gudjonsson. Interrogative suggestibility: its relationship with assertiveness, social-evaluative anxiety, state anxiety and method of coping. The British journal of clinical psychology/the British Psychological Society, 27:159, 1988.
22. E. Hall. A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior1. American anthropologist, 65(5):1003-1026, 1963.
23. E. Hall. The hidden dimension, volume 6. Doubleday New York, 1966.
24. M. Hoffman. Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 84(4):712-722, 1977.
25. T. Kanda, M. Kamasima, M. Imai, T. Ono, D. Sakamoto, H. Ishiguro, and Y. Anzai. A humanoid robot that pretends to listen to route guidance from a human. Autonomous Robots, 22(1):87-100, 2007. (Pubitemid 46372474)
26. A. Kendon. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta psychologica, 26(1):22, 1967.
27. A. Kendon. An agenda for gesture studies. Semiotic review of books, 7(3):8-12, 1996.
28. A. Kendon. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge Univ Press, 2004.
29. C. Kidd and C. Breazeal. A robotic weight loss coach. In Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2, pages 1985-1986. AAAI Press, 2007.
30. J. Lafferty, P. Eady, and J. Elmers. The desert survival problem. Experimental Learning Methods, 1974.
31. R. Looije, M. Neerincx, and F. Cnossen. Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: Design and evaluation of social behaviors. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(6):386-397, 2010.
32. F. Maricchiolo, A. Gnisci, M. Bonaiuto, and G. Ficca. Effects of different types of hand gestures in persuasive speech on receiversÕ evaluations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(2):239-266, 2009.
33. P. Markey and C. Markey. A Brief Assessment of the Interpersonal Circumplex. Assessment, 16(4):352, 2009.
34. D. McNeill. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press, 1996.
35. A. Mehrabian. Silent messages. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., Belmont, CA., 1971.
36. S. Messman and J. Jones-Corley. Effects of communication environment, immediacy, and communication apprehension on cognitive and affective learning. Communication Monographs, 68(2):184-200, 2001.
37. C. Midden and J. Ham. Using negative and positive social feedback from a robotic agent to save energy. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Persuasive '09, pages 12:1-12:6, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.
38. G. Miller. The Art of Virtual Persuasion. Science, 317(5843):1343, 2007.
39. T. Mottet, J. Parker-Raley, C. Cunningham, S. Beebe, and P. Raffeld. Testing the neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on student course workload expectancy violations and tolerance for instructor unavailability. Communication Education, 55(2):147-166, 2006. (Pubitemid 43453826)
40. P. Peters. Gaining Compliance Through Non-Verbal Communication. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 7:87, 2007.
41. L. Pogue and K. Ahyun. The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education, 55(3):331-344, 2006. (Pubitemid 43977487)
42. K. Reardon. Persuasion in practice. Sage Publications, Inc, 1991.
43. V. Richmond, J. Gorham, and J. McCroskey. The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. Communication yearbook, 10(574-590), 1987.
44. K. Rocca. College student attendance: Impact of instructor immediacy and verbal aggression. Communication Education, 53(2):185-195, 2004. (Pubitemid 38727235)
45. J. Rosip and J. Hall. Knowledge of nonverbal cues, gender, and nonverbal decoding accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(4):267-286, 2004. (Pubitemid 39604534)
46. C. Segrin. The effects of nonverbal behavior on outcomes of compliance gaining attempts. Communication Studies, 44(3):169-187, 1993.
47. C. Sidner, C. Kidd, C. Lee, and N. Lesh. Where to look: a study of human-robot engagement. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pages 78-84. ACM, 2004.
48. M. Siegel, C. Breazeal, and M. Norton. Persuasive robotics: the influence of robot gender on human behavior. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/RSJ international conference on Intelligent robots and systems, IROS'09, pages 2563-2568, Piscataway, NJ, 2009. IEEE Press.
49. E. Sundstrom and I. Altman. Interpersonal relationships and personal space: Research review and theoretical model. Human Ecology, 4(1):47-67, 1976.
50. R. Tanner and T. Chartrand. The Convincing Chameleon: Impact of Mimicry on Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 34:754-766, 2008.
51. P. Taylor, A. Black, and R. Caley. The architecture of the Festival speech synthesis system. In The Third ESCA/COCOSDA Workshop (ETRW) on Speech Synthesis, 1998.
52. K. Thweatt. The impact of teacher immediacy, teacher affinity-seeking, and teacher misbehaviors on student-perceived teacher credibility. National Communication Association, Chicago, IL, 1999.
53. P. Zimbardo and M. Leippe. The psychology of attitude change and social influence. McGraw-Hill New York, 1991.