Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Does the Difference Between Users’ Expectations and Perceptions About a Robotic Agent Affect Their Behavior?

An Adaptation Gap Concept for Determining Whether Interactions Between Users and Agents Are Going Well or Not

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We assumed that the difference between the users’ expectations regarding the functions of an agent and the function that they actually perceived would significantly affect their behavior toward the agent. We then defined this differences as the adaptation gap and experimentally investigated how the adaptation gap signs affected the acceptance rate indicating how many of the agent’s suggestions the participants accepted as their behaviors toward the agent. The results showed that the participants with positive adaptation gap signs had a significantly higher acceptance rate than those with negative ones. This led us to conclude that the adaptation gap signs significantly affected the participants’ behavior toward agents in the way that we expected, and that comprehending these signs will become indispensable for designing interaction between users and agents.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Imai M, Ono T, Ishiguro H Robovie: communication technologies for a social robot. Int J Artif Life Robot 73–77 (2003)

  2. Watanabe T, Okubo M, Nakashige M, Danbara R (2004) InterActor: speech-driven embodied interactive actor. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 17:43–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Prendinger H, Ishizuka M (2004) Life-like characters. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cassell J, Stocky T, Bickmore T, Gao Y, Nakano Y, Ryokai K, Tversky D, Vaucelle C, Vilhjalmsson H (2002) MACK: Media lab autonomous conversational kiosk. In: Proceedings of Imagina02

    Google Scholar 

  5. Komatsu T, Yamada S (2007) How do robotics agents’ appearances affect people’s interpretations of the agents’ attitudes. In: Extended Abstract of ACM-CHI2007, pp 2519–2525

    Google Scholar 

  6. Komatsu T, Yamada S (2011) How does the agents’ appearance affect users’ interpretation of the agents’ attitudes—experimental investigation on expressing the same artificial sounds from agents with different appearances. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 27(33):260–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee N, Shin H, Sundar SS (2011) Utilitarian vs hedonic robots: role of parasocial tendency and anthropomorphism in shaping user attitude. In: Proceedings of the 6th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pp 183–184

    Google Scholar 

  8. Scholtz J, Bahrami S (2003) Human-robot interaction: development of an evaluation methodology for the bystander role of interaction. In: Proceedings of 2003 IEEE international conference on systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol 4, pp 3212–3217

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 12 the IEEE international workshops on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN2003, pp 55–60

    Google Scholar 

  10. Matsumoto N, Fujii H, Goan M, Okada M (2005) Minimal design strategy for embodied communication agents. In: Proceedings of the 14th international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN2005, pp 335–340

    Google Scholar 

  11. Okada M, Sakamoto S, Muu N Suzuki (2000) Artificial creatures as an embodied interface. In: Proceedings of 27th international conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, SIGGRAPH, p 91

    Google Scholar 

  12. Suzuki N, Takeuchi Y, Ishii K, Okada M (2000) Talking: eye: autonomous creatures for augmented chatting. Robot Auton Syst 31:171–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kiesler S (2005) Fostering common ground in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 14th international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN2005, pp 729–734

    Google Scholar 

  14. Clark HH (1992) Arenas of language use. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kanda T, Miyashita T, Osada T, Haikawa Y, Ishiguro H (2008) Analysis of humanoid appearances in human-robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 24(3):725–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yamada S, Komatsu T (2006) Designing simple and effective expressions of robot’ primitive minds to a human. In: Proceedings of 2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, IROS-2006, pp 2614–2619

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Komatsu T, Yamada S (2008) Effect of agent appearance on people’s interpretation of agent’s attitudes. In: Extended abstract of ACM-CHI-2008, pp 2929–2934

    Google Scholar 

  18. Komatsu T, Yamada S (2011) Adaptation gap hypothesis: how differences between users’ expected and perceived agent functions affect their subjective impressions. J Syst Cybern Inform 9(1):67–74

    Google Scholar 

  19. Koehler DJ (1990) Hypothesis generation and confidence in judgment. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 20:461–469

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kiyokawa S, Ueda K, Okada T (2003) The effect of meta-cognitive suggestions on viewpoint change in collaborative problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on cognitive science and the annual meetings of the 7th Australian cognitive science society joint conference, CD-ROM

    Google Scholar 

  21. Michelle WM, Larry RD (1995) A study of technological sophistication and technophobia in university students from 23 countries. Comput Hum Behav 11(1):95–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IYREC (International Young Researcher Empowerment Center), Shinshu University, 3-15-1 Tokida, Ueda, 3868567, Japan

    Takanori Komatsu

  2. Faculty of Textile Science and Technology, Shinshu University, 3-15-1 Tokida, Ueda, 3868567, Japan

    Rie Kurosawa

  3. National Institute of Informatics/SOKENDAI/Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Tokyo, 1018430, Japan

    Seiji Yamada

Authors
  1. Takanori Komatsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rie Kurosawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seiji Yamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takanori Komatsu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Komatsu, T., Kurosawa, R. & Yamada, S. How Does the Difference Between Users’ Expectations and Perceptions About a Robotic Agent Affect Their Behavior?. Int J of Soc Robotics 4, 109–116 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0122-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0122-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation