Abstract
We explored decision-making and attitudes from humans toward robots with different embodiments and substrates. Specifically, four types of robots were compared through experiments, namely, a virtual reality robot, an augmented reality robot, a physical robot, and a physical but tele-present robot that was displayed on a screen. For the experiments, 60 participants were divided into four groups to answer ten questions, and the robots provided advice about each question. Then, the participants chose whether to take the advice and their initial and final choices were registered. We measured each participant’s faith, attachment, social presence, and credibility toward the four robots through questionnaires. We found that the physical embodiment is significantly more favored by the participants, whereas the virtual embodiment is the less favored. Moreover, a robot sharing the same substrate as the participant is preferred over one not sharing the same substrate. These findings, their interpretation, and application to robots can lead to improved design and development of social robots.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Freund E, Meister A, Roβmann J (1998) Simulation of human avatars in virtual-reality. In: Robotics 98, pp 279–285
Warpefelt H (2015) Cues and insinuations: indicating affordances of non-player character using visual indicators. In: DiGRA Conference
Moon J (2018) Reviews of social embodiment for design of non-player characters in virtual reality-based social skill training for autistic children. Multimodal Technol Interact 2(3):53
Scheier C, Pfeifer R (1999) The embodied cognitive science approach. In: Tschacher W, Dauwalder J-P (eds) Dynamics, synergetics, autonomous agents: nonlinear systems approaches to cognitive psychology and cognitive science. World Scientific, pp 159–179
Li J (2015) The benefit of being physically present: a survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. Int J Hum Comput Stud 77:23–37
Brooks D, Chen YP, Howard AM (2015) Simulation versus embodied agents: does either induce better human adherence to physical therapy exercise? In: 2012 4th IEEE RAS and EMBS international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics (BioRob). IEEE
Thellman S et al (2016) Physical vs. virtual agent embodiment and effects on social interaction. In: International conference on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Berlin
Milgram P et al (1995) Augmented reality: a class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In: Telemanipulator and telepresence technologies. 1995. International society for optics and photonics
Breazeal C (2003) Toward sociable robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):167–175
Kiesler S et al (2008) Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot–like agent. Soc Cognit 26(2):169–181
Lee KM et al (2006) Can robots manifest personality?: an empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human–robot interaction. J Commun 56(4):754–772
Schultz AC, Goodrich MA (2007) Human–robot interaction: a survey. Found Trends Hum Comput Interact 1(3):203–275
Rau PLP, Li Y, Liu J (2013) Effects of a social robot’s autonomy and group orientation on human decision-making. Adv Hum–Comput Interact 2013:1–13
Wainer J et al (2006) The role of physical embodiment in human–robot interaction. In: The 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2006. ROMAN 2006. IEEE
Powers A et al (2007) Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In: Proceeding of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction—HRI ‘07
Looije R, Neerincx MA, Cnossen F (2010) Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: design and evaluation of social behaviors. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68(6):386–397
Bainbridge WA et al (2010) The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int J Soc Robot 3(1):41–52
Reeves B et al (2003) Robots versus on-screen agents: effects on social and emotional responses. In: CHI 2003
Wainer J et al (2007) Embodiment and human–robot interaction: a task-based perspective. In: The 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2007. RO-MAN 2007. IEEE
Li J, Chignell M (2011) Communication of emotion in social robots through simple head and arm movements. Int J Soc Robot 3(2):125–142
Komatsu T et al (2011) Effects of different types of artifacts on interpretations of artificial subtle expressions (ASEs). In: CHI’11 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM
Shinozawa K et al (2005) Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making. Int J Hum Comput Stud 62(2):267–279
Ju W, Sirkin D (2010) Animate objects: how physical motion encourages public interaction. In: International conference on persuasive technology. Springer, Berlin
Jost C, Le Pévédic B, Duhaut D (2012) Robot is best to play with human! In: RO-MAN, 2012 IEEE
Komatsu T (2010) Comparison an on-screen agent with a robotic agent in an everyday interaction style: how to make users react toward an on-screen agent as if they are reacting toward a robotic agent. In: Human–robot interaction. InTech
Nomura T, Sasa M (2009) Investigation of differences on impressions of and behaviors toward real and virtual robots between elder people and university students. In: IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, 2009. ICORR 2009. IEEE
Fasola J, Mataric M (2013) A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. J Hum Robot Interact 2(2):3–32
Lim S, Reeves B (2010) Computer agents versus avatars: responses to interactive game characters controlled by a computer or other player. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68(1–2):57–68
Bailenson JN, Blascovich J (2004) Avatars. In: Encyclopedia of human–computer interaction. Berkshire Publishing Group, Citeseer
Łupkowski P, Rybka M, Dziedzic D, Włodarczyk W (2018) The background context condition for the uncanny valley hypothesis. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0490-7
Pritchard SC et al (2016) Non-hierarchical influence of visual form, touch, and position cues on embodiment, agency, and presence in virtual reality. Front Psychol 7:1649
Rau PLP, Li Y, Li D (2009) Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Comput Hum Behav 25(2):587–595
Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T (2005) Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI Soc 20(2):138–150
Madsen M, Gregor S (2000) Measuring human–computer trust. In: Proceedings of the 11th Australasian conference on information systems
Fogg B, Tseng H (1999) The elements of computer credibility. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM
Riek L (2012) Wizard of Oz studies in HRI: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. J Hum Robot Interact 1:119–136
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the National Key Resource and Development Plan under Grant No. 2016YFB1001200-2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Experiment Test
Appendix: Experiment Test
The underlined options indicate the correct answers:
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, B., Rau, PL.P. Influence of Embodiment and Substrate of Social Robots on Users’ Decision-Making and Attitude. Int J of Soc Robotics 11, 411–421 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0510-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0510-7