Journal of the HCI Society of Korea (한국HCI학회논문지)

The HCI Society of Korea (한국HCI학회)
권호 표지

"Live within your role!": The impact of communication style of social robot on companionship

"Live within your role!": 소셜 로봇의 커뮤니케이션 스타일이 사용자와의 동반자 관계에 미치는 영향

  • 이원욱 (연세대학교 일반대학원 기술경영학협동과정) ;
  • 전성준 (연세대학교 일반대학원 기술경영학협동과정) ;
  • 김진우 (연세대학교 일반대학원 기술경영학협동과정)
  • Received : 2017.10.30
  • Accepted : 2017.12.05
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper provokes considerations on companionship. As human-robot relation becomes important, the role and communication styles of robot become crucial. In order to see how we should design communication styles of social robots, we generated scenarios based on pre-studies. Then, we conducted a $2{\times}2$ experiment to compare four different conditions by expected role and communication style. We divided expected roles into playing and serving role by dominance level. Also, we matched communication style on one condition and mismatched on the other. The results imply matching role with communication style is crucial in some role, however not in every role. As HCI expands to human-computer relation, our study would inspire future research on companionship between human and robots.

본 연구는 기계와 사용자의 동반자 관계에 대한 고려 사항을 제시한 연구이다. 인간 - 로봇 관계가 중요해짐에 따라 로봇의 역할과 커뮤니케이션 스타일이 중요해졌다. 본 연구는 소셜 로봇의 커뮤니케이션 스타일을 어떻게 디자인해야하는지 보기 위해 사전 연구를 기반으로 시나리오를 생성했다. 예상되는 역할과 커뮤니케이션 스타일에 따라 4 가지 조건을 비교하기 위해 $2{\times}2$ 실험을 수행했다. 예상되는 역할을 지배력에 따라 역할을 담당하고 역할로 나눴다. 또한, 한 가지 조건에서 커뮤니케이션 스타일을 맞추었고 다른 한 가지에서는 일치하지 않게 설정했다. 연구결과 커뮤니케이션 스타일과 일치하는 역할이 어떤 역할에서는 중요하지만 모든 역할에서 중요하지 않다는 것을 밝혔다. 본 연구는 HCI가 인간 - 컴퓨터 관계로 확장되며, 인간과 로봇 간의 교제에 대한 미래의 연구에 영감을 줄 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Benyon, D., Gamback, B., Hansen, P., Mival, O. and Webb, N. How was your day? Evaluating a conversational companion. IEEE Trans. Affective Computing. 4(3). pp. 299-311. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/T-AFFC.2013.15
  2. Bickmore, T. and Picard, R. Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 12(2). pp. 293-327. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1145/1067860.1067867
  3. Breazeal, C. Designing Sociable Robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2002.
  4. Buhrmester, D. and Furman, W. The development of companionship and intimacy. Child Development 58(4). pp. 1101-1113. 1987. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130550
  5. Burgoon, J. and Dunbar, N. An interactionist perspective on dominance-submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill. Communication Monographs. 67(1). pp. 96-121. 2000. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750009376497
  6. Clavel, C., Faur, C., Martin, J. C., Pesty, S. and Duhaut, D. Artificial companions with personality and social role. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Creativity and Affective Computing (CICAC). pp. 87-95. 2013.
  7. Cook, J. and Wall, T. New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 53(1). pp. 39-52. 1980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x
  8. de Graaf, M., Allouch, S. and Klamer, T. Sharing a life with Harvey: Exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Computers in Human Behavior. 43. pp. 1-14. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.030
  9. Dillard, J., Solomon, D. and Palmer, M. Structuring the concept of relational communication. RCMM. 66(1). pp. 49-65. 1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376462
  10. Holmbeck, G. and Hill, J. A path-analytic approach to the relations between parental traits and acceptance and adolescent adjustment. Sex Roles. 14(5-6). pp. 315-334. 1986. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287582
  11. Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F. and Stallones, L. Psychometric evaluation of the Lexington attachment to pets scale (LAPS). Anthrozoos. 5(3). pp. 160-175. 1992. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279392787011395
  12. Kim, M., Jeon, S. and Jang, J. Designing Companion Technology: Focusing on the Role of Companion. Unpublished manuscript. 2016.
  13. Kramer, N., Eimler, S., von der Patten, A. and Payr, S. Theory of companions: What can theoretical models contribute to applications and understanding of human-robot interaction?. Applied Artificial Intelligence. 25(6). pp. 474-502. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2011.587153
  14. Li, J., Ju, W. and Nass, C. Observer perception of dominance and mirroring behavior in human-robot relationships. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI '15. 2015.
  15. Libin, E. and Libin, A. New diagnostic tool for robotic psychology and robotherapy Studies. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 6(4). pp. 369-374. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493103322278745
  16. McQuiggan, S. and Lester, J. Modeling and evaluating empathy in embodied companion agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 65(4). pp. 348-360. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.015
  17. Nass, C., Reeves, B. and Leshner, G. Technology and roles: A tale of two TVs. Journal of Communication. 46(2). pp. 121-128. 1996. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01477.x
  18. Parrot.com,. Parrot MiniDrone Jumping Sumo, Jump and roll anywhere!. http://www.parrot.com/usa/products/jumping-sumo/ April 3. 2016.
  19. Roubroeks, M., Ham, J. and Midden, C. The dominant robot: Threatening robots cause psychological reactance, especially when they have incongruent goals. In Proceedings of International Conference on Persuasive Technology. pp. 174-184. 2010.
  20. Samsung Electronics America. http://www.samsung.com/us/appliances/vacuums/VR20H9050UW/AA Feburary 15. 2016.
  21. Silverberg, S., Marczak, M. and Gondoli, D. Maternal depressive symptoms and achievement-related outcomes among adolescent daughters: Variations by family structure. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 16(1). pp. 90-109. 1996. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431696016001006
  22. Sternberg, R. J. Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology. 27(3). pp. 313-335. 1997. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199705)27:3<313::AID-EJSP824>3.0.CO;2-4
  23. Stryker, S. Symbolic interaction as an approach to family research. Marriage and Family Living. 21(2). pp. 111-119. 1959. https://doi.org/10.2307/348099
  24. Trevarthen, C. Explaining emotions in attachment. Social Development. 7(2). pp. 269-272. 2001. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00066
  25. Uresti, J. The LECOBA learning companion system: expertise, motivation and teaching. IJCEELL. 11(3). pp. 216-228. 2001. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCEELL.2001.000395
  26. Woodward, L. and Bauer, A. People and their pets: A relational perspective on interpersonal complementarity and attachment in companion animal owners. Society & Animals. 15(2). pp. 169-189. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853007X187117
  27. Yang, J. and Hung, H. Emotions as constraining and facilitating factors for creativity: Companionate love and anger. Creativity and Innovation Management. 24(2). pp. 217-230. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12089