Article published in:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 17:3 (2016) ► pp. 438–460

Robot-Mediated interviews with Children

What do potential users think?

| University of Hertfordshire, UK
| University of Hertfordshire, UK
| University of Hertfordshire, UK
| University of Hertfordshire, UK
| University of Hertfordshire, UK
| University of Hertfordshire, UK

To date research investigating the potential of Robot-Mediated Interviews (RMI) has focused on establishing how children respond to robots in an interview scenario. In order to test if an RMI approach would work in a real world setting, it is important to establish what the experts (e.g. specialist child interviewers) would require from such a system. To determine the needs of such expert users we conducted three user panels with groups of potential real world users to gather their views of our current system and find out what they would require for the system to be useful to them. The user groups consisted of specialist police officers, intermediaries, educational specialists and healthcare specialists. To our knowledge this is the first article investigating user needs for Robot-Mediated Interviews. Due to the novelty of this area, the work presented in this paper is exploratory in nature. The results provide valuable insights into what real world users would need from a Robot-Mediated Interviewing system. Our findings will contribute to future research and technology development in the domain of RMI in particular, and child-robot interaction in general.

Keywords: Humanoid robots, interviews, children, human-robot interaction, disclosure, interaction dynamics, social interaction, user-centred design
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Participants
      • User panel #1: Police specialists, 11 participants
      • User panel #2: Intermediaries, 5 participants
      • User panel #3: Interdisciplinary user group, 4 participants
    • 3.2Procedure
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Feedback on previous work
    • 4.2Would experts use this system and where do the main benefits lie?
    • 4.3Potential complications and advantages of Robot-Mediated Interviews
    • 4.4Aesthetics of the robot
    • 4.5Interface and operation of the robot
  • 5.Conclusions
    • 5.1Summary
    • 5.2Supporting information on suggested target group
    • 5.3Requirements for a Robot-Mediated Interviewing system
  • 6.Limitations and future work
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.07woo
References
Aldridge, M., & Wood, J.
(1998) Interviewing Children: A Guide for Child Care and Forensic Practitioners. Wiley Series in Child Care and Protection: ERIC.Google Scholar
Barlett, B., Estivill-Castro, V., & Seymon, S.
(2004) Dogs or robots – Why do children see them as robotic pets rather than canine machines? Paper presented at the 5th Australasian User Interface Conference (AUIC2004).
Bethel, C. L., Eakin, D. K., Anreddy, S., Stuart, J. K., & Carruth, D.
(2013) Eyewitnesses are misled by human but not robot interviewers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. DOI logo
Bethel, C. L., Stevenson, M. R., & Scassellati, B.
(2011) Secret-sharing: Interactions between a child, robot, and adult. Paper presented at the Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2011 IEEE International Conference on.
Bradfield, A. L., & Wells, G. L.
(2000) The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: A test of the five Biggers criteria. Law and Human Behavior, 24(5), 581–594.Google Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V.
(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cassell, S., & Paul, M. H.
(1967) The role of puppet therapy on the emotional responses of children hospitalized for cardiac catheterization. The Journal of Pediatrics, 71(2), 233–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doherty-Sneddon, G.
(2004) Don’t look now… I’m trying to think. The Psychologist, 17(2), 82–85.Google Scholar
Ekman, P.
(2003) Darwin, deception, and facial expression. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1000(1), 205–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, N.
(2008) Researching social life: Sage.Google Scholar
Gurney, D. J., Vekaria, K. N., & Howlett, N.
(2013) A Nod in the Wrong Direction: Does Non-verbal Feedback Affect Eyewitness Confidence in Interviews? 1. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law(ahead-of-print), 1–10.Google Scholar
ISO, I.
(1999) 13407: Human-centred design processes for interactive systems. Geneva: ISO.Google Scholar
Jones, L., Bellis, M. A., Wood, S., Hughes, K., McCoy, E., Eckley, L., et al.
(2012) Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. The Lancet. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kozima, H., Michalowski, M., & Nakagawa, C.
(2009) Keepon: A Playful Robot for Research, Therapy, and Entertainment. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krauss, R. M.
(1998) Why do we gesture when we speak? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(2), 54–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Athanasopoulos, G., Beck, A., Cosi, P., Cuayáhuitl, H., Dekens, T., et al.
(2011) An event-based conversational system for the Nao robot. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Paralinguistic Information and its Integration in Spoken Dialogue Systems Workshop. DOI logo
McCarthy, M., & Thompson, D.
(1997) A prevalence study of sexual abuse of adults with intellectual disabilities referred for sex education. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(2), 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D.
(1992) Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mencap
(1999) Submission to the Sex Offences Review.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W.
(1986) User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poole, D. A., & Lamb, M. E.
(1998) Investigative interviews of children: A guide for helping professionals: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K., & Dickerson, P.
(2009, February 1–7). From isolation to communication: A case study evaluation of robot assisted play for children with autism with a minimally expressive humanoid robot. Paper presented at the Proc. the Second International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, ACHI 09, Cancun, Mexico.
Saldien, J., Goris, K., Yilmazyildiz, S., Verhelst, W., & Lefeber, D.
(2008) On the design of the huggable robot probo. Journal of Physical Agents, 2(2), 3–12.Google Scholar
Scaife, M., Rogers, Y., Aldrich, F., & Davies, M.
(1997) Designing for or designing with? Informant design for interactive learning environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems. DOI logo
Shapiro, D. E.
(1995) Puppet modeling technique for children undergoing stressful medical procedures: Tips for clinicians. International Journal of Play Therapy, 4(2), 31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turk, V., & Brown, H.
(1993) The sexual abuse of adults with learning disabilites: results of a two year incidence survey. Mental Handicap Research, 6(3), 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
UK Government
(2011) Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Using Special Measures.Google Scholar
(2007) Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Using Special Measures.Google Scholar
Wainer, J., Dautenhahn, K., Robins, B., & Amirabdollahian, F.
(2014) A pilot study with a novel setup for collaborative play of the humanoid robot KASPAR with children with autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(1), 45–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, L. J., Dautenhahn, K., Lehmann, H., Robins, B., Rainer, A., & Syrdal, D. S.
(2013a) Robot-Mediated Interviews: Do robots possess advantages over human interviewers when talking to children with special needs? Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Robotics.
(2013b) Robot-Mediated Interviews: Does a robotic interviewer impact question difficulty and information recovery? Paper presented at the 12th European AAATE Conference.
Wood, L. J., Dautenhahn, K., Rainer, A., Robins, B., Lehmann, H., & Syrdal, D. S.
(2013) Robot-Mediated Interviews-How Effective Is a Humanoid Robot as a Tool for Interviewing Young Children? PLOS ONE, 8(3), e59448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Lakatos, Gabriella, Luke Jai Wood, Abolfazl Zaraki, Ben Robins, Kerstin Dautenhahn & Farshid Amirabdollahian
2019.  In Social Robotics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11876], ► pp. 14 ff. Crossref logo
Pérez-Espinosa, Humberto, Juan Martínez-Miranda, Himer Avila-George, Ismael Espinosa-Curiel, David Pinto, Vivek Kumar Singh, Aline Villavicencio, Philipp Mayr-Schlegel & Efstathios Stamatatos
2018. Analyzing children’s affective reactions and preferences towards social robots using paralinguistic and self-reported information. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 34:5 ► pp. 3313 ff. Crossref logo
Rasouli, Samira, Garima Gupta, Moojan Ghafurian & Kerstin Dautenhahn
2022.  In Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Rasouli, Samira, Garima Gupta, Elizabeth Nilsen & Kerstin Dautenhahn
2022. Potential Applications of Social Robots in Robot-Assisted Interventions for Social Anxiety. International Journal of Social Robotics 14:5 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Wood, Luke J., Abolfazl Zaraki, Ben Robins & Kerstin Dautenhahn
2021. Developing Kaspar: A Humanoid Robot for Children with Autism. International Journal of Social Robotics 13:3 ► pp. 491 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 january 2023. 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.