12 - What Makes a Robot Social? - Henschel (2021)
In dit artikel worden social robots en de social robot paradox beschreven. Deze paradox wordt
veroorzaakt door het grote verschil tussen wat robots echt kunnen en de verwachtingen van
mensen van social robots.
• Wat verwachten mensen van sociale robots?
- many social robot developers have designed their creations to incorpotate human
characteristics, but being careful to avoid imitating human appearance or motion too closely, in
order to avoid the Uncanny Valley (human uncomfortable by the robot)
→ human-like embodiment makes the expectations of the interaction too high (→ less effective)
- it’s important to understand when and why a robot should look or behave in a human-like way,
and when this approach is ineffective or problematic
- HRI: Human-Robot Interaction; studies the interaction between humans and robots
→ social robots fall under the category ‘proximate interaction’: interact as peers or companions
- social robots often represent technological fixes: they use a technological approach to solve a
pressing societal problem
- social robots are physically embodied agents that have some (or full) autonomy and engage in
social interactions with humans, by communicating, cooperating and making decisions
- eight main social characteristics that users described as factors for a robot to appear social:
1. the capability of two-way interaction, and robots need to share the same environment
2. display thoughts and feelings
3. be socially aware of their environment
4. provide social support by being there for them
5. demonstrate autonomy
(6. cosiness, 7. similarity to self, 8. mutual respect)
→ users’ expectations were influenced by their relationships with other social actors (friends)
- most people see robots just as useful household servants, not companions or friends
- seven relevant dimensions of social robots (Baraka et al.):
a robot’s (1) appearance, (2) social capabilities, (3) autonomy, (4) intelligence, the (5) proximity
and (6) temporal profile of the interaction, and the (7) context of the interaction (e.g. purpose)
- Mejia and Kajikawa: “social robotics is social in its intention, but its knowledgebase is
concentrated in the engineering and technology domains”
- the literature could benefit from knowledge about psychology, cognitive- and neuroscience
In dit artikel worden social robots en de social robot paradox beschreven. Deze paradox wordt
veroorzaakt door het grote verschil tussen wat robots echt kunnen en de verwachtingen van
mensen van social robots.
• Wat verwachten mensen van sociale robots?
- many social robot developers have designed their creations to incorpotate human
characteristics, but being careful to avoid imitating human appearance or motion too closely, in
order to avoid the Uncanny Valley (human uncomfortable by the robot)
→ human-like embodiment makes the expectations of the interaction too high (→ less effective)
- it’s important to understand when and why a robot should look or behave in a human-like way,
and when this approach is ineffective or problematic
- HRI: Human-Robot Interaction; studies the interaction between humans and robots
→ social robots fall under the category ‘proximate interaction’: interact as peers or companions
- social robots often represent technological fixes: they use a technological approach to solve a
pressing societal problem
- social robots are physically embodied agents that have some (or full) autonomy and engage in
social interactions with humans, by communicating, cooperating and making decisions
- eight main social characteristics that users described as factors for a robot to appear social:
1. the capability of two-way interaction, and robots need to share the same environment
2. display thoughts and feelings
3. be socially aware of their environment
4. provide social support by being there for them
5. demonstrate autonomy
(6. cosiness, 7. similarity to self, 8. mutual respect)
→ users’ expectations were influenced by their relationships with other social actors (friends)
- most people see robots just as useful household servants, not companions or friends
- seven relevant dimensions of social robots (Baraka et al.):
a robot’s (1) appearance, (2) social capabilities, (3) autonomy, (4) intelligence, the (5) proximity
and (6) temporal profile of the interaction, and the (7) context of the interaction (e.g. purpose)
- Mejia and Kajikawa: “social robotics is social in its intention, but its knowledgebase is
concentrated in the engineering and technology domains”
- the literature could benefit from knowledge about psychology, cognitive- and neuroscience
