skip to main content
10.1145/3419249.3420143acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

GreenLife: A Persuasive Social Robot to Enhance the Sustainable Behavior in shared Living Spaces

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 October 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

This research aims to gain understanding of interactive technology, which could persuade building users to behave sustainably inside shared living spaces. By utilizing the research through design approach, we conducted a three-phase qualitative study to explore persuasive technologies for sustainability. First, we ran three focus groups (n=14) to explore what form of interactive technology could persuade building users to behave sustainably, and to investigate their related needs. Second, based on the focus group findings, we designed an application concept called GreenLife for the social robot Pepper. Third, we evaluated the GreenLife concept represented by video scenarios using an online survey (n=20). Most participants believed that social robots can persuade building users to behave sustainably by providing social feedback, valuable rewards, and reliable information on sustainability. A list of design implications was formulated to support the future design of social robots as motivators of sustainability in shared living spaces.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a42-beheshtian-supplement.mp4

mp4

61.7 MB

References

  1. Thomas Ulher and W. Lawson, Sustainable development in construction, in the 14th CIB World Building Congress on Construction and the Environment, Gävle, Sweden, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Maria V. Moreno, Miguel A. Zamora and Antonio F. Skarmeta, User-centric smart buildings for energy sustainable smart cities, Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 41-55, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ett.2771.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Brian Keeble, The Brundtland report: ‘Our common future, Medicine and War, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 17-25, 1988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408783.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Ahmad Tayyab and Muhammad J. Thaheem, Developing a residential building-related social sustainability assessment framework and its implications for BIM, Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 28, pp. 1-15, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.08.002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Saffron Woodcraft, Social Sustainability and New Communities: Moving from Concept to Practice in the UK, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 68, pp. 29-42, 2012.DOI :https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.sbspro.2012.12.204.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Lyn Bartram, Johnny Rodgers, and Rob Woodbury, Smart Homes or Smart Occupants? Supporting Aware Living in the Home, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 52–64, 2011.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-642-23771-3_5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Brian J. Fogg, Computers as persuasive social actors, Persuasive Technology, pp. 89–120, 2003.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-155860643-2/50007-x.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Harri Oinas-Kukkonen and Marja Harjumaa, Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 24, 2009.DOI: https://doi.org/10.17705%2F1cais.02428Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Makuochi Nkwo, Rita Orji, and John Ugah, Mobile persuasion, Proceedings of the Second African Conference for Human Computer Interaction on Thriving Communities - AfriCHI’18, 2018.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145%2F3283458.3283515Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Padmanabhan, Rahuvaran Mobile Persuasive Technology » Promoting pro-environmental behaviour. (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cody D. Kidd and Cynthia Breazeal, A robotic weight loss coach, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 1985–1986, 2007.DOI: https:/doi.org/10.5555/1619797.1619992Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Krestin Dautenhahn, Robots as social actors: Aurora and the case of autism, Proceedings Third Cognitive Technology Conference CT’99, vol. 359, no. 3, pp. 359–374, 1999.DOI: https//doi.org/ 10.1.1.190.1767.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Cees Midden, Teddy Mccalley, Jaap Ham, and Ruud Zaalberg, Using Persuasive Technology to Encourage Sustainable Behavior, Workshop paper at 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing, no. 1, pp. 83–86, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Nasim Beheshtian, Kirsikka Kaipainen, Kalle Kähkönen, and Aino Ahtinen, Color game: A collaborative social robotic game for icebreaking, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Academic Mindtrek, Jan. 2020. DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3377290.3377292.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Tom Masseiile, Smart Buildings: The Future of Sustainable Design - DesignIntelligence, 2019. Available: https://www.di.net/articles/smart-buildings-future-sustainable-design.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Cees Midden and Jaap Ham, Using negative and positive social feedback from a robotic agent to save energy, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology - Persuasive ’09, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145%2F1541948.1541966.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Isaac. Wiafe, A framework for analyzing, designing and evaluating persuasive technologies, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Reading, Henley Business School, Informatics Research Center. September 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Harri Oinas-Kukkonen and Marja Harjumaa, Towards Deeper Understanding of Persuasion in Software and Information Systems, First International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interaction, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109%2Fachi.2008.31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaap Ham and Cees. J. H. Midden, A Persuasive Robot to Stimulate Energy Conservation: The Influence of Positive and Negative Social Feedback and Task Similarity on Energy-Consumption Behavior, International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 163–171, Aug. 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12369-013-0205-z.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Abdullah Al Mahmud, Pavan Dadlani, Omar Mubin, Suleman Shahid, Cees Midden, and Olivar Moran, iParrot: Towards Designing a Persuasive Agent for Energy Conservation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 64–67, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-540-77006-0_8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Rahuvaran Pathmanathan, Jon Pearce, Jesper Kjeldskov, and Wally Smith, Using mobile phones for promoting water conservation, Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on - Oz CHI ’11, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2071536.2071575.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jesper Kjeldskov, Mikael B. Skov, Jeni Paay, and Rahuvaran Pathmanathan, Using mobile phones to support sustainability, Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’12, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2207676.2208395.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Evgenios Vlachos and Henrik Scharfe, Social Robots as Persuasive Agents, in International Conference on Social Computing and Social Media, 2014, vol. 8531, no. June, pp. 528–537. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-07632-4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Evgenios Vlachos and Henrik Schärfe, The Geminoid Reality, in International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2013, p. 374. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-642-22098-2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ryuji Yamazaki, Shuichi Nishio, Kohei Ogawa, and Hiroshi Ishigur, Teleoperated android as an embodied communication medium: A case study with demented elderlies in a care facility, in Proceedings - IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2012, no. April 2014, pp. 1066–1071. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2012.6343890.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Joshua Wainer, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Ben Robins, and Farshid Amirabdollahian, 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, Humanoids 2010, 2010, pp. 631–638. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ichr.2010.5686346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. J. Ham and A. Spahn, Shall I Show You Some Other Shirts Too? The Psychology and Ethics of Persuasive Robots, Cognitive Technologies, pp. 63–81, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21548-8_4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Mikey Siegel, Cynthia Breazeal, and Michael I. Norton, Persuasive Robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Oct. 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/iros.2009.5354116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Lykke Broggard Bertel, Peers: Persuasive Educational and Entertainment Robotics: A Design-Based Research Approach to Social Robots in Teaching and Learning, Aalborg Universitetsförlag. PhD. -serien for Det Humanistiske Fakultet, Aalborg Universitet 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5278/vbn.phd.hum.00039.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Mojgan Hashemian, Persuasive Social robots using Social Power dynamics: Doctoral consortium, in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS, 2019, vol. 4, no. May, pp. 2408–2410.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Andreas Spahn, And Lead Us (Not) into Persuasion…? Persuasive Technology and the Ethics of Communication, Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 633–650, May 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9278-y.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Omar Mubin, Luke Vink, Pieter Oosterwijk, Abdullad A. Mahmud, and Suleman Shahid, Floffy: Designing an Outdoor Robot for Children, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 563–570, 2013.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Swapna Joshi and Selma Sabanovic, A communal perspective on shared robots as social catalysts, 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Aug. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2017.8172384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Vijay Chidambaram, Yueh-H. Chiang, and Bilge Mutlu, Designing persuasive robots, Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI ’12, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157798.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson, Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’07, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Roy B. Melton, Carla B. Zoltowski, Monica E. Cardella, and William C. Oakes, Work in progress - Development of a design task to assess students’ understanding of human-centered design, Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, pp. 26–27, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2010.5673150.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Paul Gill, Kate Stewart, Elizabeth Treasure, and Barbara Chadwick, Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups, British Dental Journal, vol. 204, no. 6, pp. 291–295, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Satu Elo and Helvi Kyngäs, The qualitative content analysis process, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 107–115, Apr. 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Monika Lohani, Charlene Stokes, Marissa McCoy, Christopher A. Bailey, and Susan E. Rivers, Social interaction moderates human-robot trust-reliance relationship and improves stress coping, 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Mar. 2016. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2016.745181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Igor M. Verner, Alex Polishuk, and Niv Krayner, Science Class with Rob Thespian: Using a Robot Teacher to Make Science Fun and Engage Students, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 74–80, Jun. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2016.2515018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Johan F. Hoorn and Sonja D. Winter, Here Comes the Bad News: Doctor Robot Taking Over, International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 519–535, Dec. 2017.DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0455-2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Jeff Gothelf, Lean UX: Applying lean principles to improve user experience. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Pepper the humanoid robot SoftBank Robotics. https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/pepper?q=emea/en/pepper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Kirsikka Kaipainen, Aino Ahtinen, and Aleksi Hiltunen, Nice surprise, more present than a machine, Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference on - Mindtrek ’18, 2018.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3275116.3275137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Mojgan Hashemian, Ana Paiva, Samuel Mascarenhas, Pedro A. Santos, and Rui Prada, The Power to Persuade: a study of Social Power in Human-Robot Interaction, 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Oct. 2019.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ro-man46459.2019.8956298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Abraham Wandersman and P. Florin, Citizen Participation and Community Organizations, Handbook of Community Psychology, pp. 247–272, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Jan W. Bolderdijk, Philip K. Lehman, and Scott E. Geller, Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour with Rewards and Penalties, Environmental Psychology, pp. 273–282, Nov. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241072.ch27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Brian Fogg, The Behavior Grid, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology - Persuasive ’09, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1542001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Cosimo Talò, Terri Mannarini, and Alessia Rochira, Sense of Community and Community Participation: A Meta-Analytic Review, Social Indicators Research, vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 1–28, May 2013.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0347-2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Aino Ahtinen and Kirsikka Kaipainen, Learning and Teaching Experiences with a Persuasive Social Robot in Primary School – Findings and Implications from a 4-Month Field Study, Persuasive Technology. Designing for Future Change, pp. 73–84, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45712-9_6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Minja Axelsson, Social Robot Co-design Canvases, OSF.2020, March 31.DOI: https: doi.org/ 10.17605/OSF.IO/JG2T8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society
    October 2020
    1177 pages
    ISBN:9781450375795
    DOI:10.1145/3419249

    Copyright © 2020 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 26 October 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    NordiCHI '20 Paper Acceptance Rate89of399submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate379of1,572submissions,24%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format