Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enhancing Emotional Support: The Effect of a Robotic Object on Human–Human Support Quality

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

Abstract

Emotional support in the context of psychological caregiving is an important aspect of human–human interaction that can significantly increase well-being. In this study, we tested if non-verbal gestures of a non-humanoid robot can increase emotional support in a human–human interaction. Sixty-four participants were invited in pairs to take turns in disclosing a personal problem and responding in a supportive manner. In the experimental condition, the robotic object performed emphatic gestures, modeled according to the behavior of a trained therapist. In the baseline condition, the robotic object performed up-and-down gestures, without directing attention towards the participants. Findings show that the robot’s empathy-related gestures significantly improved the emotional support quality provided by one participant to another, as indicated by both subjective and objective measures. The non-humanoid robot was perceived as peripheral to the natural human–human interaction and influenced participants’ behavior without interfering. We conclude that non-humanoid gestures of a robotic object can enhance the quality of emotional support in intimate human–human interaction.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

Will be provided at request.

References

  1. Alves-Oliveira P, Arriaga P, Hoffman G, Paiva A (2016) Boosting children’s creativity through creative interactions with social robots. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 591–592

  2. Alves-Oliveira P, Sequeira P, Melo FS, Castellano G, Paiva A (2019) Empathic robot for group learning: a field study. ACM Trans Human Robot Interact (THRI) 8(1):3

    Google Scholar 

  3. Andersen PA, Guerrero LK, Buller DB, Jorgensen PF (1998) An empirical comparison of three theories of nonverbal immediacy exchange. Hum Commun Res 24(4):501–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson-Bashan L, Megidish B, Erel H, Wald I, Hoffman G, Zuckerman O, Grishko A (2018) The greeting machine: an abstract robotic object for opening encounters. In: 2018 27th IEEE International symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 595–602

  5. Applegate JL (1980) Person-and position-centered teacher communication in a day care center: a case study triangulating interview and naturalistic methods. Stud Symb Interact 3:59–96

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ashton WA, Fuehrer A (1993) Effects of gender and gender role identification of participant and type of social support resource on support seeking. Sex Roles 28(7–8):461–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Banks J, de Graaf M (2020) Toward an agent-agnostic transmission model: synthesizing anthropocentric and technocentric paradigms in communication. Hum Mach Commun 1(1):2

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baron RS, Cutrona CE, Hicklin D, Russell DW, Lubaroff DM (1990) Social support and immune function among spouses of cancer patients. J Personal Soc Psychol 59(2):344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):71–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bavelas JB, Black A, Lemery CR, Mullett J (1987) Motor mimicry as primitive empathy. In: Eisenberg N, Strayer (eds) Empathy and its development. Cambridge University Press, pp 317–338

  11. Ben-Naim S, Hirschberger G, Ein-Dor T, Mikulincer M (2013) An experimental study of emotion regulation during relationship conflict interactions: the moderating role of attachment orientations. Emotion 13(3):506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bernieri FJ, Rosenthal R (1991) Interpersonal coordination: Behavior matching and interactional synchrony. In: Feldman RS, Rime B (eds) Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 401–432

  13. Biegel DE, Sales E, Schulz R (1991) Family caregiving in chronic illness: Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, heart disease, mental illness, and stroke. Sage Publications, Inc., London

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bowlby J (1969) Attachment and loss v. 3, vol 1. Random House, New York. Adapted from Furman W, Buhrmester D (2009) Methods and measures: the network of relationships inventory: behavioral systems version. Int J Behav Dev 33:470–478

  15. Bowlby J (1982) Attachment and loss: retrospect and prospect. Am J Orthopsychiatry 52(4):664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Boyatzis RE (1998) Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brave S, Nass C, Hutchinson K (2005) Computers that care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. Int J Hum Comput Stud 62(2):161–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Breazeal C, Kidd CD, Thomaz AL, Hoffman G, Berlin M (2005) Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human–robot teamwork. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ International conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, pp 708–713

  19. Brennan KA, Clark CL, Shaver PR (1998) Self-report measure-ment of adult attachment: an integrative overview. In: Simpson JA, Rholes WS (eds), Attachment theory and close relationships. Guilford Press, New York, pp 46–76

  20. Burgoon JK, Buller DB, Hale JL, de Turck MA (1984) Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Hum Commun Res 10(3):351–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Burleson BR (1994) Comforting messages: significance, approaches, and effects. In: Burleson BR, Albrecht TL, Sarason IG (eds), Communication of social support: messages, interactions, relationships, and community. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 3–28

  22. Cacciatore J, Schnebly S, Froen JF (2009) The effects of social support on maternal anxiety and depression after stillbirth. Health Soc Care Community 17(2):167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Calzado J, Lindsay A, Chen C, Samuels G, Olszewska J (2018) Sami: interactive, multi-sense robot architecture. In: 2018 IEEE 22nd International conference on intelligent engineering systems (INES). IEEE, pp 000317–000322

  24. Carnelley KB, Pietromonaco PR, Jaffe K (1996) Attachment, caregiving, and relationship functioning in couples: effects of self and partner. Pers Relatsh 3(3):257–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chartrand TL, Bargh JA (1999) The chameleon effect: the perception–behavior link and social interaction. J Personal Soc Psychol 76(6):893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cid F, Moreno J, Bustos P, Núnez P (2014) Muecas: a multi-sensor robotic head for affective human robot interaction and imitation. Sensors 14(5):7711–7737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Clark HH (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Cohen S, Syme SL (1985) Issues in the study and application of social support. Soc Support health 3:3–22

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen SE, Syme S (1985) Social support and health. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  30. Coker DA, Burgoon J (1987) The nature of conversational involvement and nonverbal encoding patterns. Hum Commun Res 13(4):463–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Collins NL, Feeney BC (2000) A safe haven: an attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. J Personal Soc Psychol 78(6):1053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Collins NL, Ford MB (2010) Responding to the needs of others: the caregiving behavioral system in intimate relationships. J Soc Pers Relatsh 27(2):235–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Constable JF, Russell DW (1986) The effect of social support and the work environment upon burnout among nurses. J Hum Stress 12(1):20–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Correia F, Mascarenhas S, Prada R, Melo FS, Paiva A (2018) Group-based emotions in teams of humans and robots. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 261–269

  35. Cramer H, Goddijn J, Wielinga B, Evers V (2010) Effects of (in) accurate empathy and situational valence on attitudes towards robots. In: 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 141–142

  36. Cristea IA, Sucala M, David D (2013) Can you tell the difference? Comparing face-to-face versus computer-based interventions. The “eliza” effect in psychotherapy. J Cogn Behav Psychother 13(2):291–298

    Google Scholar 

  37. Crocker J, Canevello A (2008) Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: the role of compassionate and self-image goals. J Personal Soc Psychol 95(3):555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cutrona CE, Russell DW (1990) Type of social support and specific stress: toward a theory of optimal matching. In: Sarason IG, Pierce GR (eds) Social support: an interactional view. Wiley, New York

  39. DeLongis A, Folkman S, Lazarus RS (1988) The impact of daily stress on health and mood: psychological and social resources as mediators. J Personal Soc Psychol 54(3):486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Duck S, Wright PH (1993) Reexamining gender differences in same-gender friendships: a close look at two kinds of data. Sex Roles 28(11–12):709–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):177–190

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Edinger JA, Patterson ML (1983) Nonverbal involvement and social control. Psychol Bull 93(1):30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Edwards A (2018) Animals, humans, and machines: interactive implications of ontological classification. In: Guzman AL (ed) Human-machine communication: rethinking communication, technology, and ourselves. Peter Lang, New York, pp 29–50

  44. Edwards A, Edwards C, Westerman D, Spence PR (2019) Initial expectations, interactions, and beyond with social robots. Comput Hum Behav 90:308–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Edwards C, Edwards A, Spence PR, Lin X (2018) I, teacher: using artificial intelligence (AI) and social robots in communication and instruction. Commun Educ 67(4):473–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Edwards C, Edwards A, Spence PR, Westerman D (2016) Initial interaction expectations with robots: testing the human-to-human interaction script. Commun Stud 67(2):227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Erel H, Shem Tov T, Kessler Y, Zuckerman O (2019) Robots are always social: robotic movements are automatically interpreted as social cues. In: Extended abstracts of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1–6

  48. Feeney BC, Collins NL (2001) Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: an attachment theoretical perspective. J Personal Soc Psychol 80(6):972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Fitzpatrick KK, Darcy A, Vierhile M (2017) Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Ment Health 4(2):e19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Forlizzi J (2007) How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. In: 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 129–136

  51. Gambino A, Fox J, Ratan RA (2020) Building a stronger casa: extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Hum Mach Commun 1(1):5

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ghosh M, Tanaka F (2011) The impact of different competence levels of care-receiving robot on children. In: 2011 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, pp 2409–2415

  53. Gibbs GA (2008) Analysing qualitative data (qualitative research kit). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California

  54. Goffman E (1979) Footing. Semiotica 25(1–2):1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gurung R, Sarason B, Sarason I (1997) Close personal relationships and health outcomes: a key to the role of social support. In: Duck SE, Hay DF, Hobfoll SE, Ickes WE, Montgomery BM (eds) Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research and interventions, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 547–573

    Google Scholar 

  56. Gurung RA, Sarason BR, Sarason IG (1997) Personal characteristics, relationship quality, and social support perceptions and behavior in young adult romantic relationships. Pers Relatsh 4(4):319–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Guzman AL (2016) The messages of mute machines: human–machine communication with industrial technologies. Communication+ 1 5(1):1–30

    Google Scholar 

  58. Guzman AL (2018) What is human–machine communication, anyway. In: Human–machine communication: rethinking communication, technology, and ourselves, pp 1–28

  59. Guzman AL (2020) Ontological boundaries between humans and computers and the implications for human–machine communication. Hum Mach Commun 1(1):3

    Google Scholar 

  60. Guzman AL, Lewis SC (2020) Artificial intelligence and communication: a human–machine communication research agenda. New Media Soc 22(1):70–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hall JA, Harrigan JA, Rosenthal R (1995) Nonverbal behavior in clinician–patient interaction. Appl Prev Psychol 4(1):21–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hegel F, Spexard T, Wrede B, Horstmann G, Vogt T (2006) Playing a different imitation game: Interaction with an empathic android robot. In: 2006 6th IEEE-RAS International conference on humanoid robots. IEEE, pp 56–61

  63. Hoffman G, Bauman S, Vanunu K (2016) Robotic experience companionship in music listening and video watching. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 20(1):51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Hoffman G, Ju W (2012) Designing robots with movement in mind. J Hum Robot Interact 1(1):78–95

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hoffman G, Ju W (2014) Designing robots with movement in mind. J Hum Robot Interact 3(1):91–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Hoffman G, Zuckerman O, Hirschberger G, Luria M, Shani Sherman T (2015) Design and evaluation of a peripheral robotic conversation companion. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 3–10

  67. Isaacs CD, Embry LH, Baer DM (1982) Training family therapists: an experimental analysis. J Appl Behav Anal 15(4):505–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Jeffreys H (1998) The theory of probability. OUP, Oxford

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  69. Jones SM, Burleson BR (1997) The impact of situational variables on helpers’ perceptions of comforting messages: an attributional analysis. Commun Res 24(5):530–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Jones SM, Guerrero LK (2001) The effects of nonverbal immediacy and verbal person centeredness in the emotional support process. Hum Commun Res 27(4):567–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ju W, Takayama L (2009) Approachability: how people interpret automatic door movement as gesture. Int J Des 3(2):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  72. Jung MF, DiFranzo D, Stoll B, Shen S, Lawrence A, Claure H (2018) Robot assisted tower construction-a resource distribution task to study human-robot collaboration and interaction with groups of people. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.09548

  73. Jung MF, Martelaro N, Hinds PJ (2015) Using robots to moderate team conflict: the case of repairing violations. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 229–236

  74. Kohr MA, Parrish JM, Neef NA, Driessen JR, Hallinan PC (1988) Communication skills training for parents: experimental and social validation. J Appl Behav Anal 21(1):21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Krause N, Herzog AR, Baker E (1992) Providing support to others and well-being in later life. J Gerontol 47(5):P300–P311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Lakey B, Heller K (1988) Social support from a friend, perceived support, and social problem solving. Am J Community Psychol 16(6):811–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Lakin JL, Jefferis VE, Cheng CM, Chartrand TL (2003) The chameleon effect as social glue: evidence for the evolutionary significance of nonconscious mimicry. J Nonverbal Behav 27(3):145–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Leite I, Henriques R, Martinho C, Paiva A (2013) Sensors in the wild: exploring electrodermal activity in child–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 41–48

  79. Leite I, Pereira A, Mascarenhas S, Martinho C, Prada R, Paiva A (2013) The influence of empathy in human–robot relations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 71(3):250–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Lepore SJ, Silver RC, Wortman CB, Wayment HA (1996) Social constraints, intrusive thoughts, and depressive symptoms among bereaved mothers. J Personal Soc Psychol 70(2):271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Lin N, Ensel WM, Simeone RS, Kuo W (1979) Social support, stressful life events, and illness: a model and an empirical test. J Health Soc Behav 20:108–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Lisetti C, Amini R, Yasavur U, Rishe N (2013) I can help you change! An empathic virtual agent delivers behavior change health interventions. ACM Trans Manag Inf Syst (TMIS) 4(4):19

    Google Scholar 

  83. Liu B, Sundar SS (2018) Should machines express sympathy and empathy? Experiments with a health advice chatbot. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 21(10):625–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Love J, Selker R, Marsman M, Jamil T, Dropmann D, Verhagen A, Ly A, Gronau Q, Smira M, Epskamp S et al (2015) Jasp [computer software]. Google Scholar

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Luria M, Hoffman G, Zuckerman O (2017) Comparing social robot, screen and voice interfaces for smart-home control. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 580–628

  87. Ly KH, Ly AM, Andersson G (2017) A fully automated conversational agent for promoting mental well-being: a pilot RCT using mixed methods. Internet Interv 10:39–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Major B, Zubek JM, Cooper ML, Cozzarelli C, Richards C (1997) Mixed messages: implications of social conflict and social support within close relationships for adjustment to a stressful life event. J Personal Soc Psychol 72(6):1349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Matud MP, Ibañez I, Bethencourt JM, Marrero R, Carballeira M (2003) Structural gender differences in perceived social support. Personal Individ Differ 35(8):1919–1929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. McQuiggan SW, Robison JL, Phillips R, Lester JC (2008) Modeling parallel and reactive empathy in virtual agents: an inductive approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 1. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp 167–174

  91. Mori M (1970) Bukimi no tani [the uncanny valley]. Energy 7:33–35

    Google Scholar 

  92. Morris RR, Kouddous K, Kshirsagar R, Schueller SM (2018) Towards an artificially empathic conversational agent for mental health applications: system design and user perceptions. J Med Internet Res 20(6):e10148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Mou Y, Shi C, Shen T, Xu K (2020) A systematic review of the personality of robot: mapping its conceptualization, operationalization, contextualization and effects. Int J Hum Comput Interact 36(6):591–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Mutlu B, Shiwa T, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) Footing in human–robot conversations: how robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. ACM, pp 61–68

  95. Nadelson T (1987) The inhuman computer/the too-human psychotherapist. Am J Psychother 41(4):489–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Nass C, Steuer J (1993) Voices, boxes, and sources of messages: computers and social actors. Hum Commun Res 19(4):504–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Nass C, Steuer J, Tauber ER (1994) Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 72–78

  98. Niculescu A, van Dijk B, Nijholt A, Li H, See SL (2013) Making social robots more attractive: the effects of voice pitch, humor and empathy. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):171–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Ochs M, Sadek D, Pelachaud C (2012) A formal model of emotions for an empathic rational dialog agent. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 24(3):410–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Olszewska JI (2020) IEEE recommended practice for assessing the impact of autonomous and intelligent systems on human well-being: IEEE standard 7010–2020. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9084219

  101. Olszewska JI, Houghtaling M, Goncalves PJ, Fabiano N, Haidegger T, Carbonera JL, Patterson WR, Ragavan SV, Fiorini SR, Prestes E (2020) Robotic standard development life cycle in action. J Intell Robot Syst 98(1):119–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Paiva A, Leite I, Boukricha H, Wachsmuth I (2017) Empathy in virtual agents and robots: a survey. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst (TiiS) 7(3):11

    Google Scholar 

  103. Parlitz C, Hägele M, Klein P, Seifert J, Dautenhahn K (2008) Care-o-bot 3-rationale for human–robot interaction design. In: Proceedings of 39th international symposium on robotics (ISR), Seul, Korea, pp 275–280

  104. Pasch LA, Bradbury TN, Davila J (1997) Gender, negative affectivity, and observed social support behavior in marital interaction. Pers Relatsh 4(4):361–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Pereira A, Leite I, Mascarenhas S, Martinho C, Paiva A (2010) Using empathy to improve human–robot relationships. In: International conference on human–robot personal relationship. Springer, Berlin, pp 130–138

  106. Prendinger H, Ishizuka M (2005) The empathic companion: a character-based interface that addresses users’ affective states. Appl Artif Intell 19(3–4):267–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Preston SD, De Waal FB (2002) Empathy: its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav Brain Sci 25(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Riek LD, Paul PC, Robinson P (2010) When my robot smiles at me: enabling human–robot rapport via real-time head gesture mimicry. J Multimodal User Interfaces 3(1–2):99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Riek LD, Robinson P (2008) Real-time empathy: facial mimicry on a robot. In: Workshop on affective interaction in natural environments (AFFINE) at the international ACM conference on multimodal interfaces (ICMI 08). ACM. Citeseer

  110. Rifinski D, Erel H, Feiner A, Hoffman G, Zuckerman O (2020) Human–human–robot interaction: robotic object’s responsive gestures improve interpersonal evaluation in human interaction. Hum Comput Interact. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2020.1719839

  111. Robinson H, MacDonald B, Kerse N, Broadbent E (2013) The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 14(9):661–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Shen S, Slovak P, Jung MF (2018) “Stop. I see a conflict happening.” A robot mediator for young children’s interpersonal conflict resolution. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 69–77

  113. Spence PR (2019) Searching for questions, original thoughts, or advancing theory: Human-machine communication. Comp Human Behav 90:285–287

  114. Spence PR, Westerman D, Edwards C, Edwards A (2014) Welcoming our robot overlords: initial expectations about interaction with a robot. Commun Res Rep 31(3):272–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Sprenger J (2013) Testing a precise null hypothesis: the case of Lindley’s paradox. Philos Sci 80(5):733–744

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  116. Strohkorb Sebo S, Traeger M, Jung M, Scassellati B (2018) The ripple effects of vulnerability: the effects of a robot’s vulnerable behavior on trust in human–robot teams. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 178–186

  117. Sundar SS, Kim J (2019) Machine heuristic: when we trust computers more than humans with our personal information. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1–9

  118. Swindle R Jr, Heller K, Pescosolido B, Kikuzawa S (2000) Responses to nervous breakdowns in America over a 40-year period: mental health policy implications. Am Psychol 55(7):740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Takano E, Chikaraishi T, Matsumoto Y, Nakamura Y, Ishiguro H, Sugamoto K (2009) Psychological effects on interpersonal communication by bystander android using motions based on human-like needs. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ International conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, pp 3721–3726

  120. Tapus A, Mataric MJ (2007) Emulating empathy in socially assistive robotics. In: AAAI spring symposium: multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics, pp 93–96

  121. Tennent H, Shen S, Jung M (2019) Micbot: a peripheral robotic object to shape conversational dynamics and team performance. In: 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 133–142

  122. Torta E, Werner F, Johnson DO, Juola JF, Cuijpers RH, Bazzani M, Oberzaucher J, Lemberger J, Lewy H, Bregman J (2014) Evaluation of a small socially-assistive humanoid robot in intelligent homes for the care of the elderly. J Intell Robot Syst 76(1):57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Turner HA (1994) Gender and social support: taking the bad with the good? Sex Roles 30(7–8):521–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Turner RJ, Frankel BG, Levin DM (1983) Social support: Conceptualization, measurement, and implications for mental health. In Greenley J (ed) Research in community and mental health JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol 3, pp 67–111

  125. Ullrich D, Diefenbach S, Butz A (2016) Murphy miserable robot: a companion to support children’s well-being in emotionally difficult situations. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 3234–3240

  126. Wainer J, Dautenhahn K, Robins B, Amirabdollahian F (2010) Collaborating with kaspar: using an autonomous humanoid robot to foster cooperative dyadic play among children with autism. In: 2010 10th IEEE-RAS International conference on humanoid robots. IEEE, pp 631–638

  127. Weber AL, Harvey JH (1994) Perspectives on close relationships. Allyn & Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  128. Weizenbaum J (1976) Computer power and human reason. Freeman, San Francisco

  129. Wethington E, Kessler RC (1986) Perceived support, received support, and adjustment to stressful life events. J Health Soc Behav 27:78–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Winstead BA, Derlega VJ, Lewis RJ, Sanchez-Hucles J, Clarke E (1992) Friendship, social interaction, and coping with stress. Commun Res 19(2):193–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Wortham RH, Theodorou A, Bryson JJ (2016) What does the robot think? transparency as a fundamental design requirement for intelligent systems. In: IJCAI-2016 ethics for artificial intelligence workshop

  132. Yankeelov PA, Barbee AP, Cunningham MR, Druen PB (1995) The influence of negative medical diagnoses and verbal and nonverbal support activation strategies on the interactive coping process. J Nonverbal Behav 19(4):243–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Yu R, Hui E, Lee J, Poon D, Ng A, Sit K, Ip K, Yeung F, Wong M, Shibata T et al (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 

  134. Zaga C, de Vries RA, Li J, Truong KP, Evers V (2017) A simple nod of the head: the effect of minimal robot movements on children’s perception of a low-anthropomorphic robot. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 336–341

  135. Zuckerman O, Hoffman G (2015) Empathy objects: robotic devices as conversation companions. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. ACM, pp 593–598

  136. Zuckerman O, Hoffman G, Kopelman-Rubin D, Klomek AB, Shitrit N, Amsalem Y, Shlomi Y (2016) KIP3: robotic companion as an external cue to students with ADHD. In: Proceedings of the TEI’16: tenth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. ACM, pp 621–626

  137. Zuckerman O, Walker D, Grishko A, Moran T, Levy C, Lisak B, Wald IY, Erel H (2020) Companionship is not a function: the effect of a novel robotic object on healthy older adults’ feelings of “being-seen”. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1–14

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Osnat Cohen-Ganor, a clinical psychologist (EFT certified couples therapist, and supervisor, ICEEFT), who participated in the pilot study and contributed her time and expertise for modeling the robotic object’s gestures. We thank all of the study participants for sharing their experience and providing insightful comments, and our lab members who were instrumental to this work: Iddo Wald, Nadav Viduchinsky, Idan David, Danielle Rifinski, and Andrey Grishko.

Funding

No funds, grants, or other support was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Media Innovation Lab (miLAB), School of Communications, The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, 46150, Herzliya, Israel

    Hadas Erel, Denis Trayman, Chen Levy, Adi Manor & Oren Zuckerman

  2. Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology, The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Herzliya, Israel

    Mario Mikulincer

Authors
  1. Hadas Erel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denis Trayman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chen Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adi Manor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mario Mikulincer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Oren Zuckerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hadas Erel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (mp4 37351 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Erel, H., Trayman, D., Levy, C. et al. Enhancing Emotional Support: The Effect of a Robotic Object on Human–Human Support Quality. Int J of Soc Robotics 14, 257–276 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00779-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00779-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation