Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Robot Reciprocation of Hugs Increases Both Interacting Times and Self-disclosures

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

Abstract

Physical contact like touching and hugging plays an essential role in social bonding between people by encouraging interactions and self-disclosure. However, in a human–robot interaction context, it remains unknown whether physical activity with robots provides such similar effects, even though several positive effects of touch interactions have been unveiled. Therefore, we used a hugging robot that we previously developed and experimentally investigated its physical interactions related to encouraging interactions and self-disclosure with 48 participants. Our results showed that reciprocated hugs increased the interaction times and encouraged more self-disclosure from the hugged participants than those who did not get reciprocated hugs.

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

Access this article

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

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shiomi M, Nakata A, Kanbara M, Hagita N (2017) A robot that encourages self-disclosure by hug. In: Kheddar A, Yoshida E, Ge SS, et al (eds) Social robotics: 9th international conference, ICSR 2017, Tsukuba, Japan, November 22–24, 2017, proceedings. Springer, Cham, pp 324–333

  2. Yun S-S, Kim M, Choi M-T (2013) Easy interface and control of tele-education robots. Int J Social Robot 5(3):335–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shiomi M, Kanda T, Howley I, Hayashi K, Hagita N (2015) Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? Int J Social Robot 7(5):641–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Komatsubara T, Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2014) Can a social robot help children’s understanding of science in classrooms? In: Proceedings of the second international conference on Human-agent interaction, Tsukuba, Japan, pp 83–90

  5. Tanaka F, Isshiki K, Takahashi F, Uekusa M, Sei R, Hayashi K (2015) Pepper learns together with children: Development of an educational application. In: 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th international conference on humanoid robots (humanoids), pp 270–275

  6. Tanaka F, Matsuzoe S (2012) Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning: field experiments in a classroom for vocabulary learning. J Hum Robot Interact 1(1):78–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Felzmann H, Beyan T, Ryan M, Beyan O (2016) Implementing an ethical approach to big data analytics in assistive robotics for elderly with dementia. SIGCAS Comput Soc 45(3):280–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mordoch E, Osterreicher A, Guse L, Roger K, Thompson G (2013) Use of social commitment robots in the care of elderly people with dementia: a literature review. Maturitas 74(1):14–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shiomi M, Iio T, Kamei K, Sharma C, Hagita N (2015) Effectiveness of social behaviors for autonomous wheelchair robot to support elderly people in Japan. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0128031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mutlu B, Forlizzi J (2008) Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 287–294

  11. Ljungblad S, Kotrbova J, Jacobsson M, Cramer H, Niechwiadowicz K (2012) Hospital robot at work: something alien or an intelligent colleague? In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work, pp 177–186

  12. Iwamura Y, Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2011) Do elderly people prefer a conversational humanoid as a shopping assistant partner in supermarkets? In: 2011 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 449–457

  13. Kanda T, Shiomi M, Miyashita Z, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2010) A communication robot in a shopping mall. IEEE Trans Robot 26(5):897–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N, Ishiguro H (2007) A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):962–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mumm J, Mutlu B (2011) Human–robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 331–338

  16. Huang C-M, Iio T, Satake S, Kanda T (2014) Modeling and controlling friendliness for an interactive museum robot. In: Robotics: science and systems

  17. Kruijff-Korbayová I, Oleari E, Bagherzadhalimi A, Sacchitelli F, Kiefer B, Racioppa S, Pozzi C, Sanna A (2015) Young users’ perception of a social robot displaying familiarity and eliciting disclosure. In: International conference on social robotics, pp 380–389

  18. Birnbaum GE, Mizrahi M, Hoffman G, Reis HT, Finkel EJ, Sass O (2016) What robots can teach us about intimacy: the reassuring effects of robot responsiveness to human disclosure. Comput Hum Behav 63:416–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Martelaro N, Nneji VC, Ju W, Hinds P (2016) Tell me more: designing HRI to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship. In: The eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction, pp 181–188

  20. Cozby PC (1973) Self-disclosure: a literature review. Psychol Bull 79(2):73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gibbs JL, Ellison NB, Heino RD (2006) Self-presentation in online personals: the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet dating. Commun Res 33(2):152–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Weizenbaum J (1966) ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun ACM 9(1):36–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moon Y (2000) Intimate exchanges: using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. J Consum Res 26(4):323–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jourard SM, Rubin JE (1968) Self-disclosure and touching: a study of two modes of interpersonal encounter and their inter-relation. J Hum Psychol 8(1):39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chandra S, Alves-Oliveira P, Lemaignan S, Sequeira P, Paiva A, Dillenbourg P (2016) Children’s peer assessment and self-disclosure in the presence of an educational robot. In: 2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 539–544

  26. Pettinati MJ, Arkin RC, Shim J (2016) The influence of a peripheral social robot on self-disclosure. In: 2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 1063–1070

  27. Yu R, Hui E, Lee J, Poon D, Ng A, Sit K, Ip K, Yeung F, Wong M, Shibata T (2015) Use of a therapeutic, socially assistive pet robot (PARO) in improving mood and stimulating social interaction and communication for people with dementia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc 4(2):e45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shiomi M, Nakagawa K, Shinozawa K, Matsumura R, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2016) Does a robot’s touch encourage human effort? Int J Soc Robot 9:5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fukuda H, Shiomi M, Nakagawa K, Ueda K (2012) ‘Midas touch’ in human–robot interaction: evidence from event-related potentials during the ultimatum game. In: 2012 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot Interaction (HRI), pp 131–132

  30. Nakagawa K, Shiomi M, Shinozawa K, Matsumura R, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2012) Effect of robot’s whispering behavior on people’s motivation. Int J Soc Robot 5(1):5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hirano T, Shiomi M, Iio T, Kimoto M, Tanev I, Shimohara K, Hagita N (2018) How do communication cues change impressions of human–robot touch interaction? Int J Soc Robot 10(1):21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sumioka H, Nakae A, Kanai R, Ishiguro H (2013) Huggable communication medium decreases cortisol levels. Sci Rep 3:3034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shiomi M, Nakata A, Kanbara M, Hagita N (2017) A hug from a robot encourages prosocial behavior. In: 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 418–423

  34. Shiomi M, Minato T, Ishiguro H (2017) Subtle reaction and response time effects in human–robot touch interaction. In: International conference on social robotics, pp 242–251

  35. Willemse CJAM, Toet A, van Erp JBF (2017) Affective and behavioral responses to robot-initiated social touch: toward understanding the opportunities and limitations of physical contact in human–robot interaction. Front ICT 4:12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Li JJ, Ju W, Reeves B (2017) Touching a mechanical body: tactile contact with body parts of a humanoid robot is physiologically arousing. J Hum Robot Interact 6(3):118–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fitter NT, Kuchenbecker KJ (2018) Teaching a robot bimanual hand-clapping games via wrist-worn IMUs. Front Rob AI Soc 5:85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fitter NT, Kuchenbecker KJ (2019) How does it feel to clap hands with a robot? Int J Soc Robot 12: 113–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shiomi M, Hagita N (2019) Audio-visual stimuli change not only robot’s hug impressions but also its stress-buffering effects. Int J of Soc Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00530-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Block AE, Kuchenbecker KJ (2019) Softness, warmth, and responsiveness improve robot hugs. Int J Soc Robot 11(1):49–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kawai H, Toda T, Ni J, Tsuzaki M, Tokuda K (2004) XIMERA: a new TTS from ATR based on corpus-based technologies. In: ISCA speech synthesis workshop, pp 179–184

  42. Dahlbäck N, Jönsson A, Ahrenberg L (1993) Wizard of Oz studies: why and how. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on intelligent user interfaces, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp 193–200

  43. Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken CC (2002) Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum Commun Res 28(4):587–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20(1):37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Huisman G (2017) Social touch technology: a survey of haptic technology for social touch. IEEE Trans Haptics 10(3):391–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zheng X, Shiomi M, Minato T, Ishiguro H (2019) What kinds of robot’s touch will match expressed emotions? IEEE Robot Autom Lett 5(1):127–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lucas GM, Gratch J, King A, Morency L-P (2014) It’s only a computer: virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Comput Hum Behav 37:94–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by JST CREST Grant Number JPMJCR18A1, Japan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interaction Science Laboratory, ATR, 2-2-2 Hikaridai, Kansai Science City, Kyoto, Japan

    Masahiro Shiomi, Aya Nakata & Masayuki Kanbara

  2. Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama-Cho, Ikoma, Nara, 630-0192, Japan

    Aya Nakata & Masayuki Kanbara

  3. Norihiro Hagita Laboratories, ATR, 2-2-2 Hikaridai, Kansai Science City, Kyoto, Japan

    Norihiro Hagita

Authors
  1. Masahiro Shiomi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aya Nakata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masayuki Kanbara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Norihiro Hagita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masahiro Shiomi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This paper is an extended version of a previous work of Shiomi et al. [1] and contains additional references, experiments with a different condition, analysis, and discussions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shiomi, M., Nakata, A., Kanbara, M. et al. Robot Reciprocation of Hugs Increases Both Interacting Times and Self-disclosures. Int J of Soc Robotics 13, 353–361 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00644-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00644-x

Keywords