Don't Judge a Book by its Cover: A Study of the Social Acceptance of NAO vs. Pepper

Sofia Thunberg, Sam Thellman, T. Ziemke
{"title":"Don't Judge a Book by its Cover: A Study of the Social Acceptance of NAO vs. Pepper","authors":"Sofia Thunberg, Sam Thellman, T. Ziemke","doi":"10.1145/3125739.3132583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an explorative study concerning the social acceptance of two specific humanoid robots, the experimenter asked participants (N = 36) to place a book in an adjacent room. Upon entering the room, participants were confronted by a NAO or a Pepper robot expressing persistent opposition against the idea of placing the book in the room. On average, 72% of participants facing NAO complied with the robot's requests and returned the book to the experimenter. The corresponding figure for the Pepper robot was 50%, which shows that the two robot morphologies had a different effect on participants' social behavior. Furthermore, results from a post-study questionnaire (GODSPEED) indicated that participants perceived NAO as more likable, intelligent, safe and lifelike than Pepper. Moreover, participants used significantly more positive words and fewer negative words to describe NAO than Pepper in an open-ended interview. There was no statistically significant difference between conditions in participants' negative attitudes toward robots in general, as assessed using the NARS questionnaire.","PeriodicalId":346669,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction","volume":"76 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3125739.3132583","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

In an explorative study concerning the social acceptance of two specific humanoid robots, the experimenter asked participants (N = 36) to place a book in an adjacent room. Upon entering the room, participants were confronted by a NAO or a Pepper robot expressing persistent opposition against the idea of placing the book in the room. On average, 72% of participants facing NAO complied with the robot's requests and returned the book to the experimenter. The corresponding figure for the Pepper robot was 50%, which shows that the two robot morphologies had a different effect on participants' social behavior. Furthermore, results from a post-study questionnaire (GODSPEED) indicated that participants perceived NAO as more likable, intelligent, safe and lifelike than Pepper. Moreover, participants used significantly more positive words and fewer negative words to describe NAO than Pepper in an open-ended interview. There was no statistically significant difference between conditions in participants' negative attitudes toward robots in general, as assessed using the NARS questionnaire.
不要以貌取人:NAO与Pepper的社会接受度研究
在一项关于两种特定人形机器人的社会接受度的探索性研究中,实验者要求参与者(N = 36)在相邻的房间里放一本书。一进入房间,参与者就会遇到一个NAO或Pepper机器人,它们对把书放在房间里的想法表示坚决反对。平均而言,面对NAO的参与者中,72%的人遵从了机器人的要求,把书还给了实验者。Pepper机器人的相应数字是50%,这表明两种机器人形态对参与者的社会行为有不同的影响。此外,研究后问卷(GODSPEED)的结果表明,参与者认为NAO比Pepper更可爱、更聪明、更安全、更逼真。此外,在开放式访谈中,参与者比Pepper使用更多的积极词汇和更少的消极词汇来描述NAO。在使用NARS问卷进行评估时,参与者对机器人的负面态度总体上没有统计学上的显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信