Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Introducing a Methodological Approach to Evaluate HRI from a Genuine Sociological Point of View

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Cultural Robotics (CR 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9549))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The evaluation of human-robot interaction (HRI) is still a major methodological challenge. Despite the interdisciplinary nature of the field, sociologically inspired contributions are still rare. This paper aims to introduce a theory-driven method according to a sociological interaction concept to evaluate HRI and identify aspects of successful and satisfying interaction experiences. It combines Harold Garfinkel’s breaching experiments with a frame analysis inspired by Erving Goffman. Sociologically, the method relies on a definition of social interaction based on the symbolic interactionism paradigm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goffman, E.: Frame Analysis. Harper & Row, New York (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Goffman, E.: Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Anchor Books, New York (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Goffman, E.: Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. Basic Books, New York (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Garfinkel, H.: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Polity Press, Cambridge (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wagner, C.: Robotopia Nipponica: Recherchen zur Akzeptanz von Robotern in Japan. Tectum-Verl, Marburg (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. MacDorman, K.F., Vasudevan, S.K., Ho, C.-C.: Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI Soc. 23(4), 485–510 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaplan, F.: Who is afraid of the humanoid? Investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. Int. J. Humanoid Rob. 1(03), 465–480 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Goffman, E.: Behavior in Public Places. Free Press, New York (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Muhl, C., Nagai, Y.: Does disturbance discourage people from communicating with a robot? In: 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Jeju, Korea (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wykowska, A., Ryad, C., Mamun Al-Amin, M., Müller, H.J.: Implications of robot actions for human perception. How do we represent actions of the observed robots? Int. J. Soc. Rob. 6(3), 357–366 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Feil-Seifer, D., Skinner, K., Matarić, M.J.: Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics. Interact. Stud. 8(3), 423–439 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Herrmann, G. (ed.): Social Robotics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8239. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Burghart, C., Haeussling, R.: Evaluation criteria for human robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Robot Companions: Hard Problems and Open Challenges in Robot-Human Interaction, pp. 23–31 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Compagna, D., Muhl, C.: Mensch-Roboter-Interaktion – Status der technischen Entität, Kognitive (Des)Orientierung und Emergenzfunktion des Dritten. In: Stubbe, J., Töppel, M. (eds.) Muster und Verläufe der Mensch-Technik-Interaktivität, Band zum gleichnahmigen Workshop am 17./18. Juni 2011 in Berlin, Technical University Technology Studies, Working Papers, TUTS-WP-2-2012, Berlin, 19–34 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mead, G.H.: Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1934)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Luhmann, N.: Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt aM, Suhrkamp (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lindemann, G.: Doppelte Kontingenz und reflexive Anthropologie. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 28(3), 165–181 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Baecker, D.: Who qualifies for communication? A systems perspective on human and other possibly intelligent beings taking part in the next society. Technikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis 20(1), 17–26 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lutze, M., Brandenburg, S.: Do we need a new internet for elderly people? A cross-cultural investigation. In: Rau, P. (ed.) HCII 2013 and CCD 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8024, pp. 441–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  20. VDI: VDI Guideline 6220, Part 1: Biomimetics – Conception and Strategy. Differences between Biomimetic and Conventional Methods/Products. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V., Düsseldorf (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. VDI: VDI Guideline 6222, Part 1: Biomimetics – Biomimetic Robots. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V., Düsseldorf (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Weiss, A., Bernhaupt, R., Tscheligi, M., Wollherr, D., Kuhnlenz, K., Buss, M.: A methodological variation for acceptance evaluation of human-robot interaction in public places. In: 2008 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2008, pp. 713–718. IEEE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Weiss, A., Igelsböck, J., Tscheligi, M., Bauer, A., Kühnlenz, K., Wollherr, D., Buss, M.: Robots asking for directions: the willingness of passers-by to support robots. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 23–30. IEEE Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sirkin, D., Mok, B., Yang, S., Ju, W.: Mechanical ottoman: How robotic furniture offers and withdraws support. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 11–18. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bauer, A., Klasing, K., Lidoris, G., Mühlbauer, Q., Rohrmüller, F., Sosnowski, S., Xu, T., Kühnlenz, K., Wollherr, D., Buss, M.: The autonomous city explorer: Towards natural human-robot interaction in urban environments. Int. J. Soc. Rob. 1(2), 127–140 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Alac, M., Movellan, J., Tanaka, F.: When a robot is social: spatial arrangements and multimodal semiotic engagement in the practice of social robotics. Soc. Stud. Sci. 41(6), 893–926 (2011). 0306312711420565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nagai, Y., Rohlfing, K.J.: Can motionese tell infants and robots ‘What to Imitate’? In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Imitation in Animals and Artifacts, pp. 299–306 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Short, E., Hart, J., Vu, v, Scassellati, B.: No Fair‼: an interaction with a cheating robot. In: 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 219–26 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Takayama, L., Groom, V., Nass, C.: I’m sorry, dave: I’m afraid i won’t do that: social aspects of human-agent conflict. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2099–2108 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ogino, M., Watanabe, A., Asada, M.: Mapping from facial expression to internal state based on intuitive parenting. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Epigenetic Robotics, pp. 182–183 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nagai, Y., Asada, M., Hosoda, K.: Learning for joint attention helped by functional development. Adv. Rob. 20(10), 1165–1181 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Compagna, D.: Reconfiguring the user: raising concerns over user-centered innovation. In: Proceedings VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy, pp. 332–336 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Compagna, D.: Lost in translation? The dilemma of alignment within participatory technology developments. Poiesis Prax. 9(1–2), 125–143 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Research presented in this paper was primarily supported by the German Ministry of Education and Research. In addition, we would like to thank Mollie Hosmer-Dillard for her support and helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Berlin, FG Regelungssysteme EN11, Einsteinufer 17, 10587, Berlin, Germany

    Diego Compagna, Manuela Marquardt & Ivo Boblan

Authors
  1. Diego Compagna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manuela Marquardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ivo Boblan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diego Compagna .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Creative Robotics Lab UNSW Art & Design , Paddington, Australia

    Jeffrey T.K.V. Koh

  2. Creative Robotics Lab , Paddington, New South Wales, Australia

    Belinda J. Dunstan

  3. Creative Robotics Lab , Paddington, Australia

    David Silvera-Tawil

  4. Creative Robotics Lab , Paddington, Australia

    Mari Velonaki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Compagna, D., Marquardt, M., Boblan, I. (2016). Introducing a Methodological Approach to Evaluate HRI from a Genuine Sociological Point of View. In: Koh, J., Dunstan, B., Silvera-Tawil, D., Velonaki, M. (eds) Cultural Robotics. CR 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9549. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42945-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42945-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42944-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42945-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics