Laura Malinverni
ABSTRACT
Children's fears and hopes regarding technology play a crucial role in influencing its development, impact, and social acceptance. Although studies investigate children's perceptions of social robots, there is a need to better understand how hopes and fears influence children's views of the future. In this paper, we present the outcomes of a study in which we explored 60 children's (aged 8-14) perceptions of social robots using ten fictional scenarios. From data analysis, we elicited four major themes that become the pillars of a model that represent children's perception of social robots (agency, comprehension, socioemotional features, and physicality). The model shows the complex and often paradoxical nature of children's acceptance (hope) and rejection (fear) of social robots in their lives. Our outcome provides the foundations of a new responsible approach in analyzing and designing social robots for children using hopes and fear as a lens.
- Brendan Bartlett, Vladimir Estivill-Castro, and Stuart Seymon. 2004. Dogs or robots: why do children see them as robotic pets rather than canine machines? In Proceedings of the fifth conference on Australasian user interface-Volume 28, 7–14.Google Scholar
- C Bartneck and J Forlizzi. 2004. A Design-centred Framework for Social Human–robot Interaction, RO-MAN 2004: 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE. https://doi. org/10.1109/roman.Google Scholar
- Tony Belpaeme, James Kennedy, Aditi Ramachandran, Brian Scassellati, and Fumihide Tanaka. 2018. Social robots for education: A review. Science robotics 3, 21: eaat5954.Google Scholar
- Tanya Beran and Alejandro Ramirez-Serrano. 2010. Do children perceive robots as alive? Children's attributions of human characteristics. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 137–138.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maria Blancas, Vasiliki Vouloutsi, Samuel Fernando, Martí Sánchez-Fibla, Riccardo Zucca, Tony J Prescott, Anna Mura, and Paul F M J Verschure. 2017. Analyzing children's expectations from robotic companions in educational settings. In 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th International Conference on Humanoid Robotics (Humanoids), 749–755.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Júlia Pareto Boada, Begoña Román Maestre, and Carme Torras Genís. 2021. The ethical issues of social assistive robotics: A critical literature review. Technology in Society 67: 101726.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K Bumby and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 1999. Investigating children's attitudes towards robots: A case study. In Proc. CT99, The Third International Cognitive Technology Conference, 391–410.Google Scholar
- Stephen Cave and Kanta Dihal. 2019. Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality. Nature Machine Intelligence 1, 2: 74–78.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C Di Dio, F Manzi, S Itakura, T Kanda, H Ishiguro, D Massaro, and A Marchetti. 2020. It Does Not Matter Who You Are: Fairness in Pre-schoolers Interacting with Human and Robotic Partners. International Journal of Social Robotics 12, 5: 1045–1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00528-9Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sibylle Enz, Martin Diruf, Caroline Spielhagen, Carsten Zoll, and Patricia A Vargas. 2011. The social role of robots in the future—explorative measurement of hopes and fears. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 3: 263.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ylva Fernaeus, Maria Håkansson, Mattias Jacobsson, and Sara Ljungblad. 2010. How do you play with a robotic toy animal? A long-term study of Pleo. In Proceedings of the 9th international Conference on interaction Design and Children, 39–48.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leopoldina Fortunati, Anna Esposito, Mauro Sarrica, and Giovanni Ferrin. 2015. Children's knowledge and imaginary about robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 7, 5: 685–695.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ayanna Howard and Jason Borenstein. 2018. The ugly truth about ourselves and our robot creations: the problem of bias and social inequity. Science and engineering ethics 24, 5: 1521–1536. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9975-2Google Scholar
- Netta Iivari, Sumita Sharma, Leena Ventä-Olkkonen, Tonja Molin-Juustila, Kari Kuutti, Jenni Holappa, and Essi Kinnunen. 2021. Critical agenda driving child–computer interaction research—Taking a stock of the past and envisioning the future. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction: 100408.Google Scholar
- James Kennedy, Paul Baxter, and Tony Belpaeme. 2017. The impact of robot tutor nonverbal social behavior on child learning. Frontiers in ICT 4: 6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Theresa Law, Meia Chita-Tegmark, and Matthias Scheutz. 2021. The Interplay Between Emotional Intelligence, Trust, and Gender in Human-Robot Interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robotics 13, 2: 297–309.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sonia Livingstone and Alicia Blum-Ross. 2020. Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and fears about technology shape children's lives. Oxford University Press, USA.Google Scholar
- Deirdre E Logan, Cynthia Breazeal, Matthew S Goodwin, Sooyeon Jeong, Brianna O'Connell, Duncan Smith-Freedman, James Heathers, and Peter Weinstock. 2019. Social robots for hospitalized children. Pediatrics 144, 1.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maria Luce Lupetti, Cristina Zaga, and Nazli Cila. 2021. Designerly ways of knowing in HRI: broadening the scope of design-oriented HRI through the concept of intermediate-level knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 389–398.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Laura Malinverni, Cristina Valero, Marie Monique Schaper, and Isabel Garcia de la Cruz. 2021. Educational Robotics as a boundary object: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 29: 100305.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Neil McBride. 2020. Robot enhanced therapy for autistic children: An ethical analysis. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 39, 1: 51–60.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ekaterina Pashevich. 2021. Can communication with social robots influence how children develop empathy? Best-evidence synthesis. AI & SOCIETY: 1–11.Google Scholar
- Yvette Pearson and Jason Borenstein. 2014. Creating “companions” for children: the ethics of designing esthetic features for robots. AI & society 29, 1: 23–31.Google Scholar
- D F Polit and C T Beck. 2014. Qualitative research. In Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing Practice. 8th ed. Wolters Kluwer Health, Philadelphia, 265–300.Google Scholar
- Karen Precel and David Mioduser. 2012. The effect of constructing a robot's behavior on young children's conceptions of behaving artifacts and on their Theory of Mind (ToM) and Theory of Artificial Mind (ToAM). Children, Youth, Environments Journal: 1–47.Google Scholar
- Elisa Rubegni, Monica Landoni, Laura Malinverni, and Letizia Jaccheri. 2022. Raising Awareness of Stereotyping Through Collaborative Digital Storytelling: Design for Change with and for Children. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 157: 102727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102727Google ScholarDigital Library
- Douglas Schuler and Aki Namioka. 1993. Participatory design: Principles and practices. CRC Press.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Neil Selwyn. 2019. Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the future of education. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Sofia Serholt, Sara Ljungblad, and Niamh Ní Bhroin. 2021. Introduction: special issue—critical robotics research. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01224-xGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Matthijs Smakman, Paul Vogt, and Elly A Konijn. 2021. Moral considerations on social robots in education: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Computers & Education 174: 104317.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nils F Tolksdorf, Scarlet Siebert, Isabel Zorn, Ilona Horwath, and Katharina J Rohlfing. 2021. Ethical considerations of applying robots in kindergarten settings: Towards an approach from a macroperspective. International Journal of Social Robotics 13, 2: 129–140.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sherry Turkle. 2017. Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Hachette UK.Google Scholar
- Sarah Woods. 2006. Exploring the design space of robots: Children's perspectives. Interacting with Computers 18, 6: 1390–1418.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robert K Yin. 2009. How to do better case studies. The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods 2, 254–282.Google Scholar
- Jason C Yip, Kiley Sobel, Xin Gao, Allison Marie Hishikawa, Alexis Lim, Laura Meng, Romaine Flor Ofana, Justin Park, and Alexis Hiniker. 2019. Laughing is Scary, but Farting is Cute.Google Scholar
- Jason C Yip, Kiley Sobel, Xin Gao, Allison Marie Hishikawa, Alexis Lim, Laura Meng, Romaine Flor Ofiana, Justin Park, and Alexis Hiniker. 2019. Laughing is Scary, but Farting is Cute: A Conceptual Model of Children's Perspectives of Creepy Technologies. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–15.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jason C Yip, Kiley Sobel, Caroline Pitt, Kung Jin Lee, Sijin Chen, Kari Nasu, and Laura R Pina. 2017. Examining adult-child interactions in intergenerational participatory design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 5742–5754.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yaoxin Zhang, Wenxu Song, Zhenlin Tan, Huilin Zhu, Yuyin Wang, Cheuk Man Lam, Yifang Weng, Sio Pan Hoi, Haoyang Lu, and Bella Siu Man Chan. 2019. Could social robots facilitate children with autism spectrum disorders in learning distrust and deception? Computers in Human Behavior 98: 140–149.Google ScholarDigital Library
Recommendations
Perceptions of Infidelity with Sex Robots
HRI '21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionIn two surveys of adults in the United States (N=723), we asked about perceptions of the degree to which a variety of behaviors, when engaged in with a sex robot or a human, would constitute monogamous relationship infidelity (Study 1), and also asked ...
Could social robots facilitate children with autism spectrum disorders in learning distrust and deception?
AbstractSocial robots have been increasingly involved in our daily lives and provide a new environment for children's growth. The current study aimed to examine how children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) learned complex ...
Highlights- We examined how children with autism distrusted and deceived a social robot.
- ...
Understanding Design Preferences for Robots for Pain Management: A Co-Design Study
HRI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionThere is growing interest in psychological interventions using socially assistive robots to mitigate distress and pain in the pediatric population. This work seeks to address the deficit in understanding of what features and functionality young children ...
Comments