Laura Hoffmann
ABSTRACT
We propose a new theoretical framework assuming that embodiment effects in HAI and HRI are mediated by users' perceptions of an artificial entity's body-related capabilities. To enable the application of our framework to foster more theoretical-driven research, we developed a new self-report measurement that assesses bodilyrelated perceptions of the embodiment and corporeality - which we reveal as not being a binary characteristic of artificial entities. For the development and validation of the new scale we conducted two surveys and one video-based experiment. Exploratory factor analysis reveal a four-factorial solution with good reliability (Study 2, n = 442), which was confirmed via confirmatory factor analysis (Study 3, n = 260). In addition, we present first insights into the explanatory power of the scale: We reveal that humans? perceptions of an artificial entity's capabilities vary between virtual and physical embodiments, and that the evaluation of the artificial counterpart can be explained through the perceived capabilities. Practical applications and future research lines are discussed.
Supplemental Material
- Wilma A. Bainbridge, Justin W. Hart, Elizabeth S. Kim, and Brian Scassellati. 2011. The Benefits of Interactions with Physically Present Robots over VideoDisplayed Agents. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 1 (2011), 41--52.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- M. S. Bartlett. 1937. Properties of Sufficiency and Statistical Tests. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 160, 901 (1937), 268--282.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christoph Bartneck. 2003. Interacting with an embodied emotional character. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces. ACM Press, New York, NY, 55--60. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Colleen M. Carpinella, Alisa B. Wyman, Michael A. Perez, and Steven J. Stroessner. 2017. The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS). In Proceedings of the 2017 ACMIEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Bilge Mutlu (Ed.). ACM, {S.l.}, 254--262. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Juan Fasola and Maja Mataric. 2013. A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 2, 2 (2013), 3--32. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eamonn Ferguson and Tom Cox. 1993. Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Users' Guide. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 1, 2 (1993), 84--94.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andy P. Field. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex and drugs and rock and roll) (3 ed.). Sage Publications, Los Angeles {i.e. Thousand Oaks and Calif.} and London. {8} Kerstin Fischer, Katrin S. Lohan, and Kilian Foth. 2012. Levels of embodiment: Linguistic analyses of factors influencing HRI. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI'12). 463--470. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dai Hasegawa, Justine Cassell, and Kenji Araki. 2010. The Role of Embodiment and Perspective in Direction-Giving Systems. In AAAI Fall Symposium: Dialog with Robots.Google Scholar
- Laura Hoffmann and Nicole C. Krämer. 2013. Investigating the effects of physical and virtual embodiment in task-oriented and conversational contexts. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 71, 7--8 (2013), 763--774. Google ScholarDigital Library
- John L. Horn. 1965. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30, 2 (1965), 179--185.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Li-tze Hu and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, 1 (1999), 1--55.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henry F. Kaiser. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39, 1 (1974), 31--36.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hiroko Kamide, Yasushi Mae, Koji Kawabe, Satoshi Shigemi, Masato Hirose, and Tatsuo Arai. 2012. New measurement of psychological safety for humanoid. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on HumanRobot Interaction. ACM, 49--56. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hiroko Kamide, Yasushi Mae, Tomohito Takubo, Kenichi Ohara, and Tatsuo Arai. 2014. Direct comparison of psychological evaluation between virtual and real humanoids: Personal space and subjective impressions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 72, 5 (2014), 451--459.Google ScholarCross Ref
- James Kennedy, Paul Baxter, and Tony Belpaeme. 2015. Comparing Robot Embodiments in a Guided Discovery Learning Interaction with Children. International Journal of Social Robotics 7, 2 (2015), 293--308.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. D. Kidd and Cynthia L. Breazeal. 2004. Effect of a robot on user perceptions. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2004) (2004), 3559--3564.Google Scholar
- Sara B. Kiesler, Aaron Powers, Susan R. Fussell, and C. Torrey. 2008. Anthropomorphic Interactions with a Robot and Robot-Like Agent. Social Cognition 26, 2 (2008), 169--181.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Takanori Komatsu. 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, Daisuke Chugo (Ed.). InTech, Vukovar, Croatia.Google Scholar
- Kwan Min Lee, Younbo Jung, Jaywoo Kim, and Sang Ryong Kim. 2006. Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people's loneliness in human--robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 10 (2006), 962--973. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Iolanda Leite, André Pereira, Carlos Martinho, and Ana Paiva. 2008. Are emotional robots more fun to play with?. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2008). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 77--82.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jamy Li. 2015. The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 77 (2015), 23--37. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jamy Li and Mark Chignell. 2011. Communication of Emotion in Social Robots through Simple Head and Arm Movements. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 2 (2011), 125--142.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gitta H. Lubke and Bengt O. Muthén. 2004. Applying Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Models for Continuous Outcomes to Likert Scale Data Complicates Meaningful Group Comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 11, 4 (2004), 514--534.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. C. McCroskey, P.R Hamilton, and A.N Weiner. 1974. The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Human Communication Research 1, 1 (1974), 42--52.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John McIver and Edward G. Carmines. 1981. Unidimensional scaling. Sage.Google Scholar
- Tatsuya Nomura, Tomohiro Suzuki, Takayuki Kanda, and Kensuke Kato. 2006. Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interaction Studies 7, 3 (2006), 437--454.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Albert Satorra. 2000. Scaled and Adjusted Restricted Tests in Multi-Sample Analysis of Moment Structures. In Innovations in Multivariate Statistical Analysis, R. D. H. Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock, and A. Satorra (Eds.). Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics, Vol. 36. Springer US, Boston, MA, 233--247.Google Scholar
- Karin Schermelleh-Engel, Helfried Moosbrugger, and Hans Müller. 2003. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online 8, 2 (2003), 23--74.Google Scholar
- K. Shinozawa, F. Naya, J. Yamato, and K. Kogure. 2005. Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 62, 2 (2005), 267--279. Google ScholarDigital Library
- James Stevens. 2009. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5 ed.). Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
- Wayne F. Velicer, Andrew C. Peacock, and Douglas N. Jackson. 1982. A comparison of component and factor patterns: A Monte Carlo approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research 17, 3 (1982), 371--388.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joshua Wainer, David J. Feil-Seifer, Dylan Shell, and Maja J. Matarić. 2007. Embodiment and human-robot interaction: A task-based perspective. In 16th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, Piscataway, N.J., 872--877.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The Peculiarities of Robot Embodiment (EmCorp-Scale): Development, Validation and Initial Test of the Embodiment and Corporeality of Artificial Agents Scale
Recommendations
Towards an integrated methodological framework for understanding embodiment in HCI
CHI EA '14: CHI '14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThe third wave in HCI reveals how embodiment matters in post-WIMP computing systems. Yet it is still unclear what methods provide effective insight into the nature of embodiment in HCI in relation to both design and use. This paper presents work in ...
Development of a scale to measure skepticism toward electronic word-of-mouth
In recent years, electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) has become an influential factor affecting Internet users' perceptions and behaviors (Chatterjee 2001; Lee et al. 2009). However, as more evidence demonstrating the utilization of fake eWOM has been ...
The Influence of a Robot's Embodiment on Trust: A Longitudinal Study
HRI '17: Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionTrust, taken from the human perspective, is an essential factor that determines the use of robots as companions or care robots, especially given the long-term character of the interaction. This study investigated the influence of a robot's embodiment on ...
Comments