Cover not available
Article published In:
Envisioning Social Robotics: Current challenges and new interdisciplinary methodologies
Edited by Glenda Hannibal and Astrid Weiss
[Interaction Studies 21:1] 2020
► pp. 57–84

Closeness, trust, and perceived social support in child-robot relationship formation

Development and validation of three self-report scales

| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam
Social robots and their interactions with children are becoming increasingly sophisticated, with the emergence of child-robot relationships as a likely result. However, adequate measurement instruments that tap into concepts associated with child-robot relationship formation are scarce. We aimed to develop three measures that can be used to assess children’s closeness to, trust in, and perceived social support from, a social robot. We established the validity and reliability of these measures among 87 Dutch children aged 7 to 11 years old. Because of their shortness, the measures can efficiently be applied by scholars aiming to gain insight into the general process of child-robot relationship formation and its specific sub-processes, that is, the emergence of closeness, trust, and perceived social support.
Keywords: child-robot relationship formation, closeness, trust, perceived social support, measure development, scale validation
Article outline
  • Current practice and measurement issues
  • Key concepts of interpersonal relationship formation
  • Method
    • Scale development
      • Closeness
      • Trust
      • Perceived social support
    • Scale validation
      • Validation measures
        • Agreeableness
        • Social anxiety
        • Attachment
        • Perceived similarity
        • Fear
    • Data collection
      • Participants
      • Procedure
  • Results
    • Unidimensional confirmatory factor analysis
    • Multidimensional confirmatory factor analysis
    • Reliability analysis and item fit
    • Concurrent validity
  • Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 24 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18052.str
References (91)
References
Ahmad, M. I., Mubin, O., & Orlando, J. (2016). Effect of different adaptations by a robot on children’s long-term engagement: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, 31–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrés, A., Pardo, D. E., Díaz, M., & Angulo, C. (2015). New instrumentation for human robot interaction assessment based on observational methods. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 7(4), 397–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Rabasca, A., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). A questionnaire for measuring the Big Five in late childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 341, 645–664. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1):71–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauminger-Zviely, N., & Agam-Ben-Artzi, G. (2014). Young friendship in HFASD and typical development: Friend versus non-friend comparisons. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(7), 1733–1748. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, P., Kennedy, J., Senft, E., Lemaignan, S., & Belpaeme, T. (2016). From characterising three years of HRI to methodology and reporting recommendations. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 391–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belpaeme, T., Baxter, P., De Greeff, J., Kennedy, J., Read, R., Looije, R., ... & Zelati, M. C. (2013). Child-robot interaction: Perspectives and challenges. Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Robotics, 452–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernath, M. S., & Feshbach, N. D. (1995). Children’s trust: Theory, assessment, development, and research directions. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 4(1), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berscheid, E., & Regan, P. (2005). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Bethel, C. L., Henkel, Z., Stives, K., May, D. C., Eakin, D. K., Pilkinton, M., … Stubbs-Richardson, M. (2016). Using robots to interview children about bullying: Lessons learned from an exploratory study. Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 712–717. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bethel, C. L., & Murphy, R. R. (2010). Review of human studies methods in HRI and recommendations. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 347–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betts, L. R., Rotenberg, K. J., & Trueman, M. (2009). The early childhood generalized trust belief scale. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(2), 175–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bigelow, B. J. (1977). Children’s friendship expectations: A cognitive-developmental study. Child Development, 28(1), 246–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borenstein, J., & Arkin, R. C. (2016). Robots, ethics, and intimacy: The need for scientific research. Proceedings of the Conference of the International Association for Computing and Philosophy. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borgers, N., De Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and response quality. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 66(1), 60–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, E. (2017). Interactions with robots: The truths we reveal about ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(9), 627–652. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2011). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cappella, J. N. (1983). Conversational involvement: Approaching and avoiding others. In J. M. Wiemann & R. P. Harrison (Eds.), Nonverbal interaction (pp. 113–148). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cole, M., Cole, S., & Lightfoot, C. (2005). The development of children (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.Google Scholar
De Jong, C., Kühne, R., Peter, J., Van Straten, C. L., & Barco, A. (2018). Intentional acceptance of social robots: Development and validation of a self-report measure for children. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
De Jong, C., Peter, J., Kühne, R., & Barco, A. (in press). Children’s acceptance of social robots: A narrative review of the research 2000–2017. Interaction Studies.
De Jong, C., Van Straten, C. L., Peter, J., Kühne, R., & Barco, A. (2018). Children and social robots: Inventory of measures for CRI research. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impact, 44–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díaz, M., Nuño, N., Saez-Pons, J., Pardo, D. E., & Angulo, C. (2011). Building up child-robot relationship for therapeutic purposes: From initial attraction towards long-term social engagement. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition, 927–932. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dibble, J. L., Levine, T. R., & Park, H. S. (2012). The Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 565–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2008). Representative trust and reciprocity: Prevalence and determinants. Economic Inquiry, 46(1), 84–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eyssel, F. (2017). An experimental psychological perspective on social robotics. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 871, 363–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furman, W., & Bierman, K. L. (1984). Children’s conceptions of friendship: A multimethod study of developmental changes. Developmental Psychology, 20(5), 925–931. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 213–237). Padstow, UK: T. J. Press.Google Scholar
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41(4), 235–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodboy, A. K., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2009). Individual differences in romantic partners’ desire for less closeness. North American Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 209–218.Google Scholar
Gordon-Hollingsworth, A. T., Thompson, J. E., Geary, M. A., Schexnaildre, M. A., Lai, B. S., & Kelley, M. L. (2016). Social Support Questionnaire for Children: Development and initial validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 49(2), 122–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, L. K. (1997). Nonverbal involvement across interactions with same-sex friends, opposite-sex friends and romantic partners: Consistency or change? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(1), 31–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guneysu, A., & Arnrich, B. (2017). Socially assistive child-robot interaction in physical exercise coaching. Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 670–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedl, J. J., & Papay, J. P. (1982). The factor structure of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children: Kindergarten through the fourth grades. Personality and Individual Differences, 3(4), 439–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hieida, C., Abe, K., Attamimi, M., Shimotomai, T., Nagai, T., & Omori, T. (2014). Physical embodied communication between robots and children: An approach for relationship building by holding hands. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 3291–3298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janveau-Brennan, G., & Markovits, H. (1999). The development of reasoning with causal conditionals. Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 904–911. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahn, P. H. & Gary, H. E., & Shen, S. (2013). Children’s social relationships with current and near-future robots. Child Developmental Perspectives, 7(1), 32–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahn, P. H., & Turiel, E. (1988). Children’s conceptions of trust in the context of social expectations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34(4), 403–419.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidd, A. H., & Kidd, R. M. (1987). Seeking a theory of the human/companion animal bond. Anthrozoös, 1(3), 140–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knapp, M. L. (1983). Dyadic relationship development. In J. M. Wiemann & R. P. Harrison (Eds.), Nonverbal interaction (pp. 179–207). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kory Westlund, J. M., Park, H. W., Williams, R., & Breazeal, C. (2018). Measuring children’s long-term relationships with social robots. Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Interaction Design and Children. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kose-Bagci, H., Ferrari, E., Dautenhahn, K., Syrdal, D. S., & Nehaniv, C. L. (2009). Effects of embodiment and gestures on social interaction in drumming games with a humanoid robot. Advanced Robotics, 23(14), 1951–1996. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krämer, N. C., Rosenthal-Von der Pütten, A. M., & Hoffmann, L. (2015). Social effects of virtual and robot companions. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 137–159). Chicester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruijff-Korbayova, I., Oleari, E., Baroni, I., Kiefer, B., Zelati, M. C., Pozzi, C., & Sanna, A. (2014). Effects of off-activity talk in human-robot interaction with diabetic children. Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 649–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
La Greca, A. M., & Lopez, N. (1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with peer relations and friendships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(2), 83–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
La Greca, A. M., & Stone, W. L. (1993). Social anxiety scale for children-revised: Factor structure and concurrent validity. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22(1), 17–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakey, B., Thomson Ross, L., Butler, C., & Bentley, K. (1996). Making social support judgments: The role of similarity and conscientiousness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15(3), 283–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(3), 595–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leite, I., Castellano, G., Pereira, A., Martinho, C., & Paiva, A. (2014). Empathic robots for long-term interaction: Evaluating social presence, engagement, and perceived support in children. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(3), 329–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leite, I., Pereira, A., & Lehman, J. F. (2017). Persistent memory in repeated child-robot conversations. Proceedings of the Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 238–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, N. (1986). Conceptualizing social support. In N. Lin, A. D. Walter, & M. Ensel (Eds.), Social support, life events, and depression (pp. 17–30). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Looije, R., Van der Zalm, A., Neerincx, M. A., & Beun, R. J. (2012). Help, I need some body: The effect of embodiment on playful learning. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 718–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Negative item bias in ratings scales for preadolescent children: A cognitive-developmental phenomenon. Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 37–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCroskey, L. L., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly, 54(1), 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. New Brunswick, NJ: AldineTransaction.Google Scholar
Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (Eds.). (2007). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Diederen, R. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Big Five Questionnaire for Children (BFQ-C) in a Dutch sample of young adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(8), 1757–1769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muris, P., Meesters, C., Van Melick, M., & Zwambag, L. (2001). Self-reported attachment style, attachment quality, and symptoms of anxiety and depression in young adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(5), 809–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Ognibene, T. C., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Adult attachment styles, perceived social support and coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 323–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2013). How to research children and online technologies? Frequently asked questions and best practice. London, UK: EU Kids Online, LSE.Google Scholar
Pearson, Y., & Borenstein, J. (2014). Creating “companions” for children: The ethics of designing esthetic features for robots. AI & Society, 29(1), 23–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peter, J., Kühne, R., Barco, A., De Jong, C., & Van Straten, C. L. (2019). Asking today the crucial questions of tomorrow: Social robots and the Internet of Toys. In G. Mascheroni & D. Holloway (Eds.), The Internet of Toys: Practices, affordances and the political economy of children’s smart play (pp. 25–46). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan (Springer Nature). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popovic, M., Milne, D., & Barrett, P. (2003). The Scale of Perceived Interpersonal Closeness (PICS). Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An International Journal of Theory & Practice, 10(5), 286–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prudon, P. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis: A brief introduction and critique. Comprehensive Psychology, 41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Punch, S. (2002). Research with children. The same or different from research with adults? Childhood, 9(3), 321–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rapee, R. M. (1997). Perceived threat and perceived control as predictors of the degree of fear in physical and social situations. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 11(5), 455–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saint-Aimé, S., Grandgeorge, M., Le Pevedic, B., & Duhaut, D. (2011). Evaluation of Emi interaction with non-disabled children in nursery school using Wizard of Oz technique. Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, 1147–1152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salter, T., Werry, I., & Michaud, F. (2008). Going into the wild in child-robot interaction studies: Issues in social robotic development. Intelligent Service Robotics 1(2), 93–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schadenberg, B. R., Neerincx, M. A., Cnossen, F., & Looije, R. (2017). Personalising game difficulty to keep children motivated to play with a social robot: A Bayesian approach. Cognitive Systems Research, 431, 222–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.Google Scholar
Severson, R. L., & Lemm, K. M. (2016). Kids see human too: Adapting an individual differences measure of anthropomorphism for a child sample. Journal of Cognition and Development, 17(1), 122–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spielberger, C. D. (1973). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC): Preliminary Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Liking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of theories. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 331–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(3), 313–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swickert, R. J., Hittner, J. B., & Foster, A. (2010). Big Five traits interact to predict perceived social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(6), 736–741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 267–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Straten, C. L., Peter, J., & Kühne, R. (2019). Child-robot relationship formation: A narrative review of empirical research. International Journal of Social Robotics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Straten, C. L., Peter, J., Kühne, R., De Jong, C., & Barco, A. (2018). Technological and interpersonal trust in child-robot interaction: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, 253–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vernberg, E. M., Abwender, D. A., Ewell, K. K., & Beery, S. H. (1992). Social anxiety and peer relationships in early adolescence: A prospective analysis. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(2), 189–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogt, P., De Haas, M., De Jong, C., Baxter, P. & Krahmer, E. (2017). Child-robot interactions for second language tutoring to preschool children. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11(73). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, P.-C., Foo, M.-D., & Turban, D. B. (2008). The role of personality in relationship closeness, developer assistance, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 440–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (33)

Cited by 33 other publications

Calvo-Barajas, Natalia, Anastasia Akkuzu & Ginevra Castellano
2024. Balancing Human Likeness in Social Robots: Impact on Children’s Lexical Alignment and Self-disclosure for Trust Assessment. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction DOI logo
Hakim, Vando Gusti Al, Su-Hang Yang, Jen-Hang Wang, Hung-Hsuan Lin & Gwo-Dong Chen
2024. Digital Twins of Pet Robots to Prolong Interdependent Relationships and Effects on Student Learning Performance. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 17 ► pp. 1883 ff. DOI logo
Ligthart, Mike E.U., Simone M. De Droog, Marianne Bossema, Lamia Elloumi, Mirjam de Haas, Matthijs H.J. Smakman, Koen V. Hindriks & Somaya Ben Allouch
2024. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ► pp. 433 ff. DOI logo
Manikutty, Gayathri, Sai Ankith Potapragada, Devasena Pasupuleti, Mahesh S. Unnithan, Arjun Venugopal, Pranav Prabha, H. Arunav, Vyshnavi Anil Kumar, P. R. Rthuraj & Rao R Bhavani
2024. 2024 8th International Conference on Robotics and Automation Sciences (ICRAS), ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Stower, Rebecca, Arvid Kappas & Kristyn Sommer
2024. When is it right for a robot to be wrong? Children trust a robot over a human in a selective trust task. Computers in Human Behavior 157 ► pp. 108229 ff. DOI logo
Vagnetti, Roberto, Nicola Camp, Matthew Story, Khaoula Ait-Belaid, Suvobrata Mitra, Massimiliano Zecca, Alessandro Di Nuovo & Daniele Magistro
2024. Instruments for Measuring Psychological Dimensions in Human-Robot Interaction: Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties. Journal of Medical Internet Research 26 ► pp. e55597 ff. DOI logo
Abbasi, Nida Itrat, Micol Spitale, Joanna Anderson, Tamsin Ford, Peter B. Jones & Hatice Gunes
2023. 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), ► pp. 1443 ff. DOI logo
Andries, Valentina & Judy Robertson
2023. Alexa doesn't have that many feelings: Children's understanding of AI through interactions with smart speakers in their homes. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 5 ► pp. 100176 ff. DOI logo
Beelen, Thomas, Ella Velner, Khiet P. Truong, Roeland Ordelman, Theo Huibers & Vanessa Evers
2023. Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Díaz-Boladeras, Marta
2023. Bond formation with pet-robots: An integrative approach. Current Psychology 42:4 ► pp. 2591 ff. DOI logo
Geiskkovitch, Denise Y. & James E. Young
2023. 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), ► pp. 1402 ff. DOI logo
Ligthart, Mike E.U., Simone M. de Droog, Marianne Bossema, Lamia Elloumi, Kees Hoogland, Matthijs H.J. Smakman, Koen V. Hindriks & Somaya Ben Allouch
2023. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ► pp. 321 ff. DOI logo
van Straten, Caroline L., Jochen Peter & Rinaldo Kühne
2023. Transparent robots: How children perceive and relate to a social robot that acknowledges its lack of human psychological capacities and machine status. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 177 ► pp. 103063 ff. DOI logo
van Straten, Caroline L., Jochen Peter & Rinaldo Kühne
2024. “You” versus “children”: A repeated-measures experiment on the effects of social robots’ use of (im)personal address forms when talking to children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 42 ► pp. 100682 ff. DOI logo
Velner, Ella
2023. Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ► pp. 748 ff. DOI logo
Cagiltay, Bengisu, Joseph Michaelis, Sarah Sebo & Bilge Mutlu
2022. Interaction Design and Children, ► pp. 382 ff. DOI logo
Calvo-Barajas, Natalia & Ginevra Castellano
2022. 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), ► pp. 1451 ff. DOI logo
Ligthart, Mike E. U., Mark A. Neerincx & Koen V. Hindriks
2022. Getting acquainted: First steps for child-robot relationship formation. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 9 DOI logo
Ligthart, Mike E. U., Mark A. Neerincx & Koen V. Hindriks
2023. It Takes Two: Using Co-creation to Facilitate Child-Robot Co-regulation. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 12:4 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ligthart, Mike E.U., Mark A. Neerincx & Koen V. Hindriks
2022. 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), ► pp. 80 ff. DOI logo
Stower, Rebecca, Rania Abdelghani, Marisa Tschopp, Keegan Evangelista, Mohamed Chetouani & Arvid Kappas
2022. Exploring space for robot mistakes in child robot interactions. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 23:2 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
van Straten, Caroline L., Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kühne & Alex Barco
2022. On sharing and caring: Investigating the effects of a robot's self-disclosure and question- asking on children's robot perceptions and child-robot relationship formation. Computers in Human Behavior 129 ► pp. 107135 ff. DOI logo
van Straten, Caroline L., Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kühne & Alex Barco
2022. The wizard and I: How transparent teleoperation and self-description (do not) affect children’s robot perceptions and child-robot relationship formation. AI & SOCIETY 37:1 ► pp. 383 ff. DOI logo
Calvo-Barajas, Natalia, Maha Elgarf, Giulia Perugia, Ana Paiva, Christopher Peters & Ginevra Castellano
2021. Hurry Up, We Need to Find the Key! How Regulatory Focus Design Affects Children’s Trust in a Social Robot. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 DOI logo
Calvo-Barajas, Natalia, Giulia Perugia & Ginevra Castellano
2021. Interaction Design and Children, ► pp. 537 ff. DOI logo
de Jong, Chiara, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kuhne, Caroline van Straten & Alex Barco
2021. 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), ► pp. 598 ff. DOI logo
Duradoni, Mirko, Giulia Colombini, Paola Andrea Russo & Andrea Guazzini
2021. Robotic Psychology: A PRISMA Systematic Review on Social-Robot-Based Interventions in Psychological Domains. J 4:4 ► pp. 664 ff. DOI logo
Peter, Jochen, Rinaldo Kühne & Alex Barco
2021. Can social robots affect children's prosocial behavior? An experimental study on prosocial robot models. Computers in Human Behavior 120 ► pp. 106712 ff. DOI logo
Rheman, Jennifer & Marlena R. Fraune
2021. Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ► pp. 417 ff. DOI logo
Stower, Rebecca, Natalia Calvo-Barajas, Ginevra Castellano & Arvid Kappas
2021. A Meta-analysis on Children’s Trust in Social Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 13:8 ► pp. 1979 ff. DOI logo
Zguda, Paulina, Anna Kołota, Gentiane Venture, Bartlomiej Sniezynski & Bipin Indurkhya
2021. Exploring the Role of Trust and Expectations in CRI Using In-the-Wild Studies. Electronics 10:3 ► pp. 347 ff. DOI logo
de Jong, Chiara, Rinaldo Kühne, Jochen Peter, Caroline L. van Straten & Alex Barco
2020. Intentional acceptance of social robots: Development and validation of a self-report measure for children. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 139 ► pp. 102426 ff. DOI logo
Schneider, Benoît
2020. À propos du numérique : des relations dynamiques et des questions sociétales. Enfance N° 3:3 ► pp. 279 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 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.