Exploring empathy in interaction

GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 101-112

  Marti, Patrizia ^a,b   Stienstra, Jelle T ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SIENA   (Italy)

^b EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

elderly; empathy; interaction design; phenomenology; robotics

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COGNITION; ELDERLY CARE; EMOTION; EMPATHY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MOTOR SYSTEM; PERCEPTION; PHENOMENOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH; ROBOTICS; SIMULATOR; SOCIAL ADAPTATION; SOCIAL ASPECT;

EID: 84878077668     PISSN: 16629647     EISSN: 1662971X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1024/1662-9647/a000086     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Journal of Co-Design, January, 6-13.
2. Auvray, M., Lenay, C., & Stewart, J. (2009). Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 32-47.
3. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and mentalizing rests on a separable brain system and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
4. Bickmore, T. W. (2003). Relational agents: Effecting change through human-computer relationships (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
5. Curry, L. A., Nembhard, I. M., Bradley, E. H. (2009). Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research. Circulation, 119, 1442-1452.
6. Deckers, E. J. L., Levy, P. D., Wensveen, S. A. G., Ahn, R., & Overbeeke, C. J. (2012). Designing for perceptual crossing: applying and evaluating design notions. International Journal of Design, 6(3), 41-55.
7. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
8. Dunne, A. (1999). Hertzian tales: Electronic products, esthetic experience and critical design. London: Royal College of Art computer related design research studio.
9. Eatough, V., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In C.Willing & W.Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 179-194). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
10. Erdmann, R. L., & Neal, A. S. (1971). Laboratory vs. field experimentation in human factors. An evaluation of an experimental self-service airline ticket vendor. Human Factors, 13, 521-531.
11. Gibson, J. J. (1979). An ecological approach to visual perception. London: Erlbaum.
12. Gordon, R. M. (1986). Folk psychology as simulation. Mind and Language, 1, 158-171.
13. Hoffman, M. E. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14. Kearney, M. H. (2001). Levels and applications of qualitative research evidence. Research in Nursing and Health, 24, 145-153.
15. Kirsch, N. L., Levine, S. P., Lajiness, R., Mossaro, M., Schneider, M., & Donders, J. (1988). Improving functional performance with computerized task guidance systems. ICAART 8 Annual Conference. Arlington, VA: RESNA Press.
16. Koskinen, I., Battarbee, K., & Mattelmäki, T. (Eds.). (2003). Empathic design. Helsinki: IT Press.
17. Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., & Wensveen, S. A. G. (2011). Design research through practice: From the lab, field, and showroom. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
18. Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as theater. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19. LoPresti, E. F., Mihailidis, A., & Kirsch, N. (2004). Assistive technology for cognitive rehabilitation: State of the art. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 14(1/2), 5-39.
20. Marti, P. (2010). Perceiving while being perceived. International Journal of Design, 4(2), 27-38.
21. Marti, P. (2012). Enabling through design: Explorations of esthetic and embodied interaction in therapy and care. Eindhoven: Technical University Library.
22. Marti, P., & Stienstra, J. T. (2013, January-February). Engaging through her eyes: Embodying the perspective of a robot companion. In Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics (AROB 2013), Daejeon, Korea.
23. Mattingly, C. (1993). Commentary on K. F. Shepard, G. M. Jensen, B. J. Schmoll, L. M. Hack, & J. Gwyer, Alternative approaches to research in physical therapy: Positivism and phenomenology. Physical Therapy, 73, 98-101.
24. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). La Phénoménologie de la perception [Phenomenology of perception]. New York: Humanities Press.
25. Overbeeke, C. J., Djajadiningrat, J. P., Wensveen, S. A. G. & Hummels, C. C. M. (1999). Experiential and respectful. In Proceedings of the International Conference Useful and Critical, Helsinki, Finland.
26. Paiva, A., Dias, J., Sobral, D., Aylett, R., Sobreperez, P., Woods, S., Zoll, C., & Hall, L. (2004). Caring for agents and agents that care: Building empathic relations with synthetic agents. Presented at the AAMAS 2004, New York.
27. Premack, D., Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 1, 515-526.
28. Raby, F. (2001). Design noir: The secret life of electronic objects. Basel: Birkhäuser.
29. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2006). Mirrors of the mind. Scientific American, 295, 54-61.
30. Rueckert, L., & Naybar, N. (2008). Gender differences in empathy: The role of the right hemisphere. Brain and Cognition, 67, 162-167.
31. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner, how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
32. Shepard, K. F., Jensen, G. M., Schmoll, B. J., Hack, L. M., & Gwyer, J. (1993). Alternative approaches to research in physical therapy: Positivism and phenomenology. Physical Therapy, 73, 88-97.
33. Smith, J. A., & Eatough, V. (2006). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In G. M.Breakwell, S.Hammond, C.Fife-Schaw, & J. A.Smith (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (pp. 322-341). London: Sage.
34. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory method and research. London: Sage.
35. Smith, J. A., Harré, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1995). Idiography and the case study. In J. A.Smith, R.Harré, & L.Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking psychology (pp. 57-69). London: Sage.
36. Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A.Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (2nd ed., pp. 53-80). London: Sage.
37. Stienstra, J. T., Bruns Alonso, M., Wensveen, S. A. G., & Kuenen, D. C. (2012, October). How to design for transformation of behavior through interactive materiality. In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI 2012), Copenhagen, Denmark (pp. 21-30). New York: ACM.
38. Stienstra, J. T. & Marti, P. (2012, October). Squeeze me: Gently please. In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI 2012), Copenhagen, Denmark, (pp. 746-750). New York: ACM.
39. Stienstra, J. T., Marti, P., & Tittarelli, M. (2013, April-May). Dreamy eyes: Exploring dynamic expression in human-system interaction. Presented at the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2013), Paris, France.
40. Tapus, A., & Mataric, M. J. (2007, March). Emulating empathy in socially assistive robotics. In Proceedings of Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive Robotics. Papers from the 2007 AAAI Spring Symposium, Technical Report SS-07-07, Stanford, CA.
41. Tapus, A., & Mataric, M. J. (2008, March). Socially assistive robots: The link between personality, empathy, physiological signals, and task performance. In Proceeding of Emotion, Personality, and Social Behavior, Papers from the 2008 AAAI Spring Symposium, Technical Report SS-08-04, Stanford, CA, USA.