I am my robot

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

I am my robot: the impact of robot-building and robot form on operators

Full text

Pdf (623 KB)

Source

ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction archive
Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction table of contents

La Jolla, California, USA

SESSION: Robots as intermediaries table of contents

Pages 31-36

Year of Publication: 2009

ISBN:978-1-60558-404-1

Authors

Victoria Groom	Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Leila Takayama	Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Paloma Ochi	Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Clifford Nass	Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Sponsors

SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 24, Downloads (12 Months): 106, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1514095.1514104 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

As robots become more pervasive, operators will develop richer relationships with them. In a 2 (robot form: humanoid vs. car) x 2 (assembler: self vs. other) between-participants experiment (N=56), participants assembled either a humanoid or car robot. Participants then used, in the context of a game, either the robot they built or a different robot. Participants showed greater extension of their self-concept into the car robot and preferred the personality of the car robot over the humanoid robot. People showed greater self extension into a robot and preferred the personality of the robot they assembled over a robot they believed to be assembled by another. Implications for the theory and design of robots and human-robot interaction are discussed.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Bartneck, C., Reichenbach, J., and Carpenter, J. 2006. Use of praise and punishment in human-robot collaborative teams. Proceedings of ROMAN (Hatfield, UK, September 6-8, 2006). ROMAN '06. IEEE, 177--182.
	2	Belk, R. W. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139--168.
	3	Burris, C. T., and Rempel, J. K. 2004. It's the end of the world as we know it,: Threat and the spatial-symbolic self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 19--42.
	4	Casper, J., & Murphy, R. R. (2003). Human-robot interactions during the robot-assisted urban search and rescue response at the World Trade Center. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B, IEEE Transactions, 33(3), 367--385
	5	Duffy, B.R. 2003. Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 177--190.
	6	Epley, N., Caruso, E.M., and Bazerman, M.H. 2006. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114, 864--886.
	7	Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., and Dautenhahn. K. 2003. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3-4), 143--166.
	8	Susan R. Fussell , Sara Kiesler , Leslie D. Setlock , Victoria Yew, How people anthropomorphize robots, Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction, March 12-15, 2008, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/1349822.1349842]
	9	Galinsky, A. D., and Moskowitz, G. B. 2000. Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708--724.
	10	Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., & Powers, A. 2003. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (San Francisco, CA). ROMAN '03.
	11	Hegel, F., Krach, S., Kircher, T., Wrede, B., and Sagerer, G. 2008. Understanding social robots: A user study on anthropomorphism. Proceedings of Robot and Human Interactive Communication (Munich, Germany, August 1-3, 2008), 574--579.
	12	Ju, W. and Takayama, L. In Press. Approachability: How people interpret automatic door movement as gesture. Proceedings of Design and Emotion (Hong Kong, China).
	13	Kiesler, T., and Kiesler, S. 2005. My pet rock and me: An experimental exploration of the self extension concept. Advances in Consumer Research, 32.
	14	Krach, S., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., Sagerer, G., Binkofski, F., and Kircher, T. 2008. Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI. PLoS ONE, 3(7).
	15	Lim, S. 2006. The effect of avatar choice and visual POV on game play experiences. Doctoral Thesis. UMI Order Number: 3209006. Stanford University.
	16	Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81--103.
	17	Clifford Nass , Jonathan Steuer , Ellen R. Tauber, Computers are social actors, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence, p.72-78, April 24-28, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/191666.191703]
	18	Rosenblatt, P. C., Walsh, P. R., and Jackson, D. A. 1976. Grief and morning in cross cultural perspective. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press.
	19	Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395--412.