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. 7–23

No evidence for enhanced likeability and social motivation towards robots after synchrony experience

| University of Glasgow
| University of Glasgow

A wealth of social psychology studies suggests that moving in synchrony with another person can positively influence their likeability and prosocial behavior towards them. Recently, human-robot interaction (HRI) researchers have started to develop real-time, adaptive synchronous movement algorithms for social robots. However, little is known how socially beneficial synchronous movements with a robot actually are. We predicted that moving in synchrony with a robot would improve its likeability and participants’ social motivation towards the robot, as measured by the number of questions asked during a free interaction period. Using a between-subjects design, we implemented the synchrony manipulation via a drawing task. Contrary to predictions, we found no evidence that participants who moved in synchrony with the robot rated it as more likeable or asked it more questions. By including validated behavioral and neural measures, future studies can generate a better and more objective estimation of synchrony’s effects on rapport with social robots.

Keywords: social robots, human-robot interaction, embodied interaction, interpersonal synchrony, social motivation, Pepper, Godspeed questionnaires
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Methods
    • Data statement
    • Participants
    • Robotic platform
    • Dependent measures
    • Experimental procedure
    • Data analysis
  • Results
    • Original group split
    • Perceived groups
  • Discussion
    • The Pepper robot as an experimental confederate: Lessons learned
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 24 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.19004.hen
References
Bartneck, C., Kuli, D., & Croft, E.
(2009) Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots, 71–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berniere, F., Reznick, S., & Rosenthal, R.
(1988) Synchrony, Pseudosynchrony and Dissynchrony Measuring the Entrainment Process in Mother Infant Interactions. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, E.
(2017) Interactions With Robots: The Truths We Reveal About Ourselves. Annu. Rev. Psychol, 68(9), 1–926. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chevallier, C., Kohls, G., Troiani, V., Brodkin, E. S., & Schultz, R. T.
(2012) The social motivation theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 231–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cross, L., Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S.
(2016) How moving together brings us together: When coordinated rhythmic movement affects cooperation. Frontiers in Psychology, 71(DEC), 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darling, K.
(2015) Who’s Jonny.Google Scholar
Duffy, B. R.
(2000) The social robot paradox. PhD Thesis, (November), 2881.
https://doi.org/
Google Scholar
Duffy, B. R., & Joue, G.
(2005) The Paradox of Social Robotics : A Discussion. AAAI Fall 2005 Symposium on Machine Ethics, Hyatt Regency.Google Scholar
Duffy, B. R., Rooney, C. F. B., Hare, G. M. P. O., & Donoghue, R. P. S. O.
(1999) What is a Social Robot ? Computer, 1–3.Google Scholar
Eriksson, J., Matarić, M. J., & Winstein, C. J.
(2005) Hands-off assistive robotics for post-stroke arm rehabilitation. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics 2005, 21–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fasola, J., & Matarić, M. J.
(2012) Using socially assistive human-robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(8), 2512–2526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feil-Seifer, D., & Matarić, M. J.
(2011) Socially assistive robotics. Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE, 18(1), 24–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hove, M. J., & Risen, J. L.
(2009) It’s All in the Timing: Interpersonal Synchrony Increases Affiliation. Social Cognition, 27(6), 949–960. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irfan, B., Kennedy, J., Senft, E., & Belpaeme, T.
(2018) Social psychology and Human-Robot Interaction : an Uneasy Marriage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasparov, G.
(2017) Deep thinking: where machine intelligence ends and human creativity begins. PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
Kokal, I., Engel, A., Kirschner, S., & Keysers, C.
(2011) Synchronized drumming enhances activity in the caudate and facilitates prosocial commitment-if the rhythm comes easily. PLoS One, 6(11), e27272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, H., Saez-Pons, J., Syrdal, D. S., & Dautenhahn, K.
(2015) In good company? Perception of movement synchrony of a non-anthropomorphic robot. PLoS ONE, 10(5), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, T., Weiss, A., & Hirche, S.
(2016) Synchrony and Reciprocity: Key Mechanisms for Social Companion Robots in Therapy and Care. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(1), 125–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mogan, R., Fischer, R., & Bulbulia, J. A.
(2017) To be in synchrony or not? A meta-analysis of synchrony’s effects on behavior, perception, cognition and affect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 721, 13–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mörtl, A., Lorenz, T., & Hirche, S.
(2014) Rhythm patterns interaction – Synchronization behavior for human-robot joint action. PLoS ONE, 9(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, B. C. N., Brass, M., Kühn, S., Tsai, C. C., Nieuwboer, W., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Baaren, R. B.
(2011) When Pinocchio acts like a human, a wooden hand becomes embodied. Action co-representation for non-biological agents. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 1373–1377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nomura, T., Kanda, T., & Suzuki, T.
(2006) Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. Ai & Society, 20(2), 138–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prescott, T. J., Epton, T., Evers, V., Mckee, K., Webb, T., Benyon, D., … Dario, P.
(2012) Robot Companions For Citizens: Roadmapping The Potential For Future Robots In Empowering Older People. Proceedings of the Conference on Bridging Research in Ageing and ICT Development (BRAID), (May). Retrieved from [URL]
Rennung, M., & Göritz, A. S.
(2016) Prosocial consequences of interpersonal synchrony: A Meta-Analysis. Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 224(3), 168–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riek, L. D.
(2014) The social co-robotics problem space: Six key challenges. Robotics Challenges and Vision (RCV2013).Google Scholar
Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K., Boekhorst, R., & Billard, A.
(2005) Robotic Assistants in Therapy and Education of Children with Autism: Can a Small Humanoid Robot Help Encourage Social Interaction Skills? Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(2), 105–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandini, G., Mohan, V., Sciutti, A., & Morasso, P.
(2018) Social Cognition for Human-Robot Symbiosis-Challenges and Building Blocks. Frontiers in neurorobotics, 121, 34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shen, Q., Dautenhahn, K., Saunders, J., & Kose, H.
(2015) Can real-time, adaptive human–robot motor coordination improve humans’ overall perception of a robot?. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 7(1), 52–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Koay, K. L., & Walters, M. L.
(2009) The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human-robot interaction study. Adaptive and Emergent Behaviour and Complex Systems.Google Scholar
Wheatley, T., Kang, O., Parkinson, C., & Looser, C. E.
(2012) From Mind Perception to Mental Connection Synchrony as a Mechanism for Social Understanding. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(8), 589–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, E., Metta, G., & Wykowska, A.
(2017) Robots as intentional agents: Using neuroscientific methods to make robots appear more social. Frontiers in Psychology, 81(OCT), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, E., Wykowska, A., Zwickel, J., & Müller, H. J.
(2012) I See What You Mean: How Attentional Selection Is Shaped by Ascribing Intentions to Others. PLoS ONE, 7(9), 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Takahashi, Hideyuki, Tomoyo Morita, Midori Ban, Hiroka Sabu, Nobutsuna Endo & Minoru Asada
2022. Gradual Rhythm Change of a Drumming Robot Enhances the Pseudosense of Leading in Human–Robot Interactions. IEEE Access 10 ► pp. 36813 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2022. 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.