Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 16:2 (2015) ► pp.249–271

Inconsistency of personality evaluation caused by appearance gap in robotic telecommunication

| Graduate School of Eng. Science, Osaka Univ. | Hiroshi Ishiguro Laboratory, Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International(ATR) |
| Hiroshi Ishiguro Laboratory, Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International(ATR) |
| Hiroshi Ishiguro Laboratory, Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International(ATR) |
| Graduate School of Eng. Science, Osaka Univ. | Hiroshi Ishiguro Laboratory, Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International(ATR) |
Compared with other communication media such as cellphones and video chat, teleoperated robots have a physical existence which increases the feeling of copresence. However, the appearance of a teleoperated robot is always the same regardless of the characteristics of its operator. Since people can determine their partner’s personality from his/her appearance, a teleoperated robot’s appearance might construct a personality that confuses the user. Our research focuses on establishing what kind of appearance of the telecommunication media could prevent confusion and increase the feeling of copresence. In this study, we compare the appearance of three types of communication media (nonhuman-like robot, human-like robot, and video chat with a projection of the speaker). The result shows that, in the case of the human-like robot, the consistency of the personality judgment is better than in the case of the nonhuman-like robot. Also, we found that teleoperated robots transmit a more appropriate context-based atmosphere, while the video chat transmits more nonverbal information, such as facial expressions.
Keywords: teleoperated android, telecomunication, robot, appearance, personality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Related work
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Communication media
    • 3.2Experimental room
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Questionnaires and evaluations
    • 3.5Target participants
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Consistency of personality judgment
    • 4.2Adaptability to situation
    • 4.3Interviews
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Human-like and nonhuman-like appearances of teleoperated robots
    • 5.2Physical and displayed faces
    • 5.3Limitations
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • References
Published online: 26 November 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.2.10kuw
References (33)
References
Beer, J.M., & Takayama, L. (2011). Mobile remote presence systems for older adults: Acceptance, benefits, and concerns. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human-robot interaction , 19–26. DOI logo
Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Billinghurst, M., Campbell, L., Chang, K., Vilhjlmsson, H., et al. (1999). Embodiment in conversational interfaces: Rea. In Proceedings of the CHI’99 conference , 520–527. DOI logo
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coeffcient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16 (3), 297–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places; notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York, NY: Free Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goris, K., Saldien, J., Vanderniepen, I., & Lefeber, D. (2009). The huggable robot Probo, a multidisciplinary research platform. In A. Gottscheber, S. Enderle, & D. Obdrzalek (Eds.), Research and education in robotics – EUROBOT 2008 (Vol. 331, pp. 29–41). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gough, H., & Heilbrun, A. (1983). The adjective check list manual. Consulting Psychologists Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, E.T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Isbister, K. (2006). Better game characters by design: A psychological approach. Boca Raton, ­Florida, USA: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Ishi, C.T., Liu, C., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2011). Speech-driven lip motion generation for teleoperated humanoid robots. In International Conference on Auditory-Visual Speech Processing , 131–135.
Kanda, T., Miyashita, T., Osada, T., Haikawa, Y., & Ishiguro, H. (2005). Analysis of humanoid appearances in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems , 899–906. DOI logo
Kidd, C.D., & Breazeal, C. (2004). Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems , 3559–3564. DOI logo
Kristoffersson, A., Coradeschi, S., & Loutfi, A. (2013). A review of mobile robotic telepresence. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 20131, 17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuratate, T., Riley, M., & Cheng, G. (2013). Effects of 3d shape and texture on gender identification for a retro-projected face screen. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(4), 627–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuwamura, K., Sakai, K., Minato, T., Nishio, S., & Ishiguro, H. (2014, February). Hugvie: communication device for encouraging good relationship through the act of hugging. Lovotics, 1(1), 10000104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, M.K., & Takayama, L. (2011). “Now, I have a body”: uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems , 33–42. DOI logo
Merola, N., & Peña, J. (2010). The effects of avatar appearance in virtual worlds. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, 2(5), 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.Google Scholar
Naumann, L.P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P.J., & Gosling, S.D. (2009). Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality and Social Psycholoty Bulletin, 35(12), 1661–1671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishio, S., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2007). Geminoid: Teleoperated android of an existing person. In A.C. de Pina Filho (Ed.), Humanoid robots: New developments (pp. 343–352). Vienna, Austria: I-Tech Education and Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogawa, K., Nishio, S., Koda, K., Balistreri, G., Watanabe, T., & Ishiguro, H. (2011). Exploring the natural reaction of young and aged person with telenoid in a real world. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, 15(5), 592–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okdie, B.M., Guadagno, R.E., Bernieri, F.J., Geers, A.L., & Mclarney-Vesotski, A.R. (2011). Getting to know you: Face-to-face versus online interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 153–159. (Current Research Topics in Cognitive Load Theory Third International Cognitive Load Theory Conference). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1367–1372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutter, D.R., Stephenson, G.M., & Dewey, M.E. (1981). Visual communication and the content and style of conversation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20(1), 41–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sakamoto, D., Kanda, T., Ono, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2007). Android as a telecommunication medium with a human-like presence. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction (HRI) (pp. 193–200). Arlington, Virginia, USA. DOI logo
Sekiguchi, D., Inami, M., & Tachi, S. (2001). RobotPHONE: RUI for interpersonal communication. CHI2001 Extended Abstracts , 227–278. DOI logo
Stiehl, W.D., Lee, J.K., Breazeal, C., Nalin, M., Morandi, A., & Sanna, A. (2009). The huggable: a platform for research in robotic companions for pediatric care. IDC ‘09 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children , 317–320. DOI logo
Straub, I., Nishio, S., & Ishiguro, H. (2010). Incorporated identity in interaction with a teleoperated android robot: A case study. In Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (pp. 139–144). Viareggio, Italy. DOI logo
Tachi, S. (2005). Telecommunication, teleimmersion, and telexistence II. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of cronbach’s alpha. International journal of medical education, 21, 53–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsui, K.M., Desai, M., Yanco, H.A., & Uhlik, C. (2011). Exploring use cases for telepresence robots. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEEE international conference on human-robot interaction , 11–18. DOI logo
Wada, S. (1996). Construction of the big five scales of personality trait terms and concurrent validity with NPI. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 67(1), 61–67. (in Japanese) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 331, 271–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Haruna, Masaki, Masaki Ogino, Shigeaki Tagashira & Susumu Morita
2023. 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), ► pp. 7075 ff. DOI logo
Ishiguro, Hiroshi
2018. Principles of Human–Robot Interaction. In Diversity in Harmony – Insights from Psychology, ► pp. 104 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.