Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of Robot Tutor’s Feedback Valence and Attributional Style on Learners

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

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of a robot tutor’s feedback valence (positive feedback and negative feedback) and attributional style (internal-attribution and external-attribution) on learners. A Nao robot was designed to be a dance tutor that taught participants dance movements and gave performance feedback. Thirty-six graduate and undergraduate students participated in the experiments and were divided into two groups: an internal-attribution group and an external-attribution group. Participants in each group received both positive and negative feedback. The results indicated that the participants were more likely to accept positive feedback than negative feedback. In addition, they perceived greater influence by positive feedback than negative feedback. Moreover, participants did not the demonstrate self-serving attributional bias. They attributed more blame to themselves than to the robot for negative performance, whereas no difference was observed in the attribution of credit between the robot and the participants. Furthermore, the internal-attribution robot tutor was more likely to be regarded as a training coach instead of a training tool than the external-attribution robot tutor. Finally, participants reported a higher relationship closeness with the internal-attribution robot tutor than the external-attribution robot tutor.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Belpaeme T, Kennedy J, Ramachandran A et al (2018) Social robots for education: a review. Sci Robot 3:5954. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S et al (2013) A review of the applicability of robots in education. J Technol Educ Learn 1:13

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kim C, Kim D, Yuan J et al (2015) Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Comput Educ 91:14–31

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benitti FBV (2012) Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput Educ 58:978–988

    Google Scholar 

  5. Karim ME, Lemaignan S, Mondada F (2015) A review: can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? In: 2015 IEEE international workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO). IEEE, pp 1–8

  6. Chang C-W, Lee J-H, Chao P-Y et al (2010) Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school. J Educ Technol Soc 13:13–24

    Google Scholar 

  7. Han J (2012) Emerging technologies: robot assisted language learning. Lang Learn Technol 16:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  8. Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Billard A (2005) Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? Univ Access Inf Soc 4:105–120

    Google Scholar 

  9. Robins B, Dickerson P, Stribling P, Dautenhahn K (2004) Robot-mediated joint attention in children with autism: a case study in robot–human interaction. Interact Stud 5:161–198

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ferrari E, Robins B, Dautenhahn K (2009) Therapeutic and educational objectives in robot assisted play for children with autism. In: RO-MAN 2009-the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 108–114

  11. Chen H, Park HW, Breazeal C (2020) Teaching and learning with children: impact of reciprocal peer learning with a social robot on children’s learning and emotive engagement. Comput Educ 150:103836

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hung I-C, Chao K-J, Lee L, Chen N-S (2013) Designing a robot teaching assistant for enhancing and sustaining learning motivation. Interact Learn Environ 21:156–171

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wei C-W, Hung I (2011) A joyful classroom learning system with robot learning companion for children to learn mathematics multiplication. Turk Online J Educ Technol 10:11–23

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grunberg D, Ellenberg R, Kim Y, Oh P (2009) Creating an autonomous dancing robot. In: Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on hybrid information technology. ACM, pp 221–227

  15. Michalowski MP, Sabanovic S, Kozima H (2007) A dancing robot for rhythmic social interaction. In: 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 89–96

  16. Kosuge K, Hayashi T, Hirata Y, Tobiyama R (2003) Dance partner robot-ms dancer. In: Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No. 03CH37453). IEEE, pp 3459–3464

  17. Xia G, Tay J, Dannenberg R, Veloso M (2012) Autonomous robot dancing driven by beats and emotions of music. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. vol 1. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp 205–212

  18. Ros R, Baroni I, Demiris Y (2014) Adaptive human–robot interaction in sensorimotor task instruction: From human to robot dance tutors. Robot Auton Syst 62:707–720

    Google Scholar 

  19. Görer B, Salah AA, Akın HL (2017) An autonomous robotic exercise tutor for elderly people. Auton Robots 41:657–678

    Google Scholar 

  20. Thorndike EL (1912) Education, a first book. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Droe KL (2013) Effect of verbal praise on achievement goal orientation, motivation, and performance attribution. J Music Teach Educ 23:63–78

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fridin M (2014) Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot: a tool for constructive learning in preschool education. Comput Educ 70:53–64

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lei M, Clemente IM, Hu Y (2019) Student in the shell: the robotic body and student engagement. Comput Educ 130:59–80

    Google Scholar 

  24. Albright MD, Levy PE (1995) The effects of source credibility and performance rating discrepancy on reactions to multiple raters 1. J Appl Soc Psychol 25:577–600

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wang M, Burlacu G, Truxillo D et al (2015) Age differences in feedback reactions: the roles of employee feedback orientation on social awareness and utility. J Appl Psychol 100:1296

    Google Scholar 

  26. Morran DK, Robison FF, Stockton R (1985) Feedback exchange in counseling groups: an analysis of message content and receiver acceptance as a function of leader versus member delivery, session, and valence. J Couns Psychol 32:57

    Google Scholar 

  27. Culbertson SS, Henning JB, Payne SC (2013) Performance appraisal satisfaction. J Pers Psychol 58:1053–1066

    Google Scholar 

  28. Karl KA, O’Leary-Kelly AM, Martocchio JJ (1993) The impact of feedback and self-efficacy on performance in training. J Organ Behav 14:379–394

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zhou J (1998) Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: interactive effects on creative performance. J Appl Psychol 83:261–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ilies R, De Pater IE, Judge T (2007) Differential affective reactions to negative and positive feedback, and the role of self-esteem. J Manag Psychol 22:590–609

    Google Scholar 

  31. Waldersee R, Luthans F (1994) The impact of positive and corrective feedback on customer service performance. J Organ Behav 15:83–95

    Google Scholar 

  32. Vancouver JB, Tischner EC (2004) The effect of feedback sign on task performance depends on self-concept discrepancies. J Appl Psychol 89:1092

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ham J, Midden CJ (2014) A persuasive robot to stimulate energy conservation: the influence of positive and negative social feedback and task similarity on energy-consumption behavior. Int J Soc Robot 6:163–171

    Google Scholar 

  34. Park E, Kim KJ, Del Pobil AP (2011) The effects of a robot instructor’s positive vs. negative feedbacks on attraction and acceptance towards the robot in classroom. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 135–141

  35. You S, Nie J, Suh K, Sundar SS (2011) When the robot criticizes you...: self-serving bias in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, pp 295–296

  36. Kelley HH, Michela JL (1980) Attribution theory and research. Annu Rev Psychol 31:457–501

    Google Scholar 

  37. Miller DT, Ross M (1975) Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: fact or fiction? Psychol Bull 82:213

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nisbett RE, Ross L (1980) Human inference: strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lei X, Rau P-LP (2020) Should I Blame the human or the robot? Attribution within a human–robot group. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00645-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Groom V, Chen J, Johnson T, et al (2010) Critic, compatriot, or chump?: Responses to robot blame attribution. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 211–218

  41. Kaniarasu P, Steinfeld AM (2014) Effects of blame on trust in human robot interaction. In: The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 850–855

  42. Lechermeier J, Fassnacht M (2018) How do performance feedback characteristics influence recipients’ reactions? A state-of-the-art review on feedback source, timing, and valence effects. Manag Rev Q 68:145–193

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ilgen DR, Fisher CD, Taylor MS (1979) Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J Appl Psychol 64:349

    Google Scholar 

  44. Zenger J, Folkman J (2013) The ideal praise-to-criticism ratio. Harvard Business Review 15

  45. Bandura A, Cervone D (1983) Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:1017

    Google Scholar 

  46. Weiner B (1974) Achievement motivation and attribution theory. General Learning Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  47. Whitehead JR, Corbin CB (1991) Youth fitness testing: the effect of percentile-based evaluative feedback on intrinsic motivation. Res Q Exerc Sport 62:225–231

    Google Scholar 

  48. Plakht Y, Shiyovich A, Nusbaum L, Raizer H (2013) The association of positive and negative feedback with clinical performance, self-evaluation and practice contribution of nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 33:1264–1268

    Google Scholar 

  49. Carver CS, Scheier MF (2001) On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  50. Klueger A, DeNisi A (1996) Effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull 119:254–284

    Google Scholar 

  51. Papousek I, Paechter M, Lackner HK (2011) Delayed psychophysiological recovery after self-concept-inconsistent negative performance feedback. Int J Psychophysiol 82:275–282

    Google Scholar 

  52. Boehler ML, Rogers DA, Schwind CJ et al (2006) An investigation of medical student reactions to feedback: a randomised controlled trial. Med Educ 40:746–749

    Google Scholar 

  53. Shim J, Arkin RC (2016) Other-oriented Robot Deception: how can a robot’s deceptive feedback help humans in HRI? In: International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, pp 222–232

  54. Akalin N, Kristoffersson A, Loutfi A (2019) The influence of feedback type in robot-assisted training. Multimodal Technol Interact 3:67

    Google Scholar 

  55. Haas M de, Baxter P, de Jong C, et al (2017) Exploring different types of feedback in preschooler and robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. pp 127–128

  56. Reyes M, Meza I, Pineda LA (2015) The positive effect of negative feedback in HRI using a facial expression robot. In: International workshop on cultural robotics. Springer, pp 44–54

  57. Wang Y, Peng H, Huang R et al (2008) Characteristics of distance learners: Research on relationships of learning motivation, learning strategy, self-efficacy, attribution and learning results. Open Learn J Open Distance e-Learn 23:17–28

    Google Scholar 

  58. Peacock M (2010) Attribution and learning English as a foreign language. ELT J 64:184–193. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Weiner B, Heckhausen H, Meyer W-U (1972) Causal ascriptions and achievement behavior: a conceptual analysis of effort and reanalysis of locus of control. J Pers Soc Psychol 21:239

    Google Scholar 

  60. Heider F (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sedikides C, Campbell WK, Reeder GD, Elliot AJ (1998) The self-serving bias in relational context. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:378

    Google Scholar 

  62. Moon Y (2003) Don’t blame the computer: When self-disclosure moderates the self-serving bias. J Consum Psychol 13:125–137

    Google Scholar 

  63. Buchholz V, Kulms P, Kopp S (2017) It’s (not) your fault! blame and trust repair in human–agent cooperation. Kognitive Syst. https://doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/44538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Liden RC, Mitchell TR (1985) Reactions to feedback: the role of attributions. Acad Manag J 28:291–308

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hanington B, Martin B (2012) Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers, Beverly

    Google Scholar 

  66. Peterson C, Semmel A, Von Baeyer C et al (1982) The attributional style questionnaire. Cognit Ther Res 6:287–299

    Google Scholar 

  67. Kim T, Hinds P (2006) Who should I blame? Effects of autonomy and transparency on attributions in human–robot interaction. In: The 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2006. ROMAN 2006. IEEE, pp 80–85

  68. Madsen M, Gregor S (2000) Measuring human-computer trust. In: 11th Australasian conference on information systems. Citeseer, pp 6–8

  69. Aron A, Aron EN, Smollan D (1992) Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:596

    Google Scholar 

  70. Moon Y, Nass C (1998) Are computers scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human–computer interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 49:79–94

    Google Scholar 

  71. Li Z, Rau P-LP (2019) Effects of self-disclosure on attributions in Human–IoT conversational agent interaction. Interact Comput 31:13–26

    Google Scholar 

  72. Klamer T, Allouch SB, Heylen D (2010) “Adventures of harvey”–use, acceptance of and relationship building with a social robot in a domestic environment. In: International conference on human–robot personal relationship. Springer, pp 74–82

  73. Weiss A, Bernhaupt R, Lankes M, Tscheligi M (2009) The USUS evaluation framework for human–robot interaction. In: AISB2009: proceedings of the symposium on new frontiers in human–robot interaction. pp 11–26

  74. Fasola J, Mataric MJ (2012) Using socially assistive human–robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proc IEEE 100:2512–2526

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China 71942005.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

    Xin Lei & Pei-Luen Patrick Rau

Authors
  1. Xin Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pei-Luen Patrick Rau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pei-Luen Patrick Rau.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix: Therbligs of Dance Movements

Appendix: Therbligs of Dance Movements

See Figs. 10, 11, 12 and 13.

Fig. 10
figure 10

Formal movement A

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

Formal movement B

Full size image
Fig. 12
figure 12

Formal movement C

Full size image
Fig. 13
figure 13

Formal movement D

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lei, X., Rau, PL.P. Effect of Robot Tutor’s Feedback Valence and Attributional Style on Learners. Int J of Soc Robotics 13, 1579–1597 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00741-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00741-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation