Cover not available
Part of
Risk Discourse and Responsibility
Edited by Annelie Ädel and Jan-Ola Östman
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 336] 2023
► pp. 172–189

Chapter 7
Risk and responsibility in human-robot interaction

An interactional approach

ORCID logo | University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
In this chapter, I argue that interaction researchers have a large toolbox available to analyze the quality of current human-robot interactions, allowing us to identify possible risks concerning the introduction of social robots into our societies. I illustrate how interactional analyses can serve to evaluate the quality of human-robot interactions on sample studies of an interview interaction with Sophia the Robot and tutoring interactions of the iCub robot with a focus on how the interaction partners take each other into account. The results indicate potential risks even in seemingly enjoyable and tightly coordinated human-robot interactions, which suggests that interaction researchers may want to take responsibility for contributing to the risk assessment of introducing social robots into our social spaces.
Keywords: robotics, human–machine interaction, interaction quality, recipient design, risk assessment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The problem addressed
  • 3.Approach
  • 4.Sample analysis: Recipient design
    • 4.1Example 1: An interview with Sophia the Robot
    • 4.2Example 2: Responsive tutoring interactions with the iCub
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.336.07fis
References (47)
References
Bajorek, J. P. 2019. “Voice Recognition still has Significant Race and Gender Biases.” Harvard Business Review 10.Google Scholar
Bangerter, A., and E. Major. 2013. “Interactional Theories of Communication.” In Theories and Models of Communication. Handbook of Communication Science, ed. by P. Cobley, and P. J. Schulz, 257 – 271. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, J. B., L. Coates, and T. Johnson. 2000. “Listeners as Co-Narrators.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (6): 941. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., and M. A. Krych. 2004. ”Speaking while Monitoring Addressees for Understanding.” Journal of Memory and Language 50 (1): 62–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., and K. Fischer. 2023. “Social Robots as Depictions of Social Agents.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46 (21): 1–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. 2013. “Multimodal Interaction from a Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Visser, E. J., M. M. Peeters, M. F. Jung, S. Kohn, T. H. Shaw, R. Pak, and M. A. Neerincx. 2020. “Towards a Theory of Longitudinal Trust Calibration in Human–Robot Teams.” International Journal of Social Robotics 12 (2): 459–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epley, N., A. Waytz, and J. T. Cacioppo. 2007. “On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism.” Psychological Review 114 (4): 864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faelens, L., K. Hoorelbeke, R. Cambier, J. van Put, E. Van de Putte, R. De Raedt, and E. H. Koste. 2021. “The Relationship Between Instagram Use and Indicators of Mental Health: A Systematic Review.” Computers in Human Behavior Reports 4: 100121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filipi, Anna. 2009. Toddler and Parent Interaction: The Organisation of Gaze, Pointing, and Vocalisation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “Effect Confirmed, Patient Dead: A Commentary on Hoffman & Zhao’s ‘Empirical Primer’.” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 10 (1) Article 9: 1–4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, Kilian Foth, Katharina Rohlfing, and Britta Wrede. 2011. “Mindful Tutors – Linguistic Choice and Action Demonstration in Speech to Infants and Robots.” Interaction Studies 12 (1): 134–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, Johanna Seibt, Raffaele Rodogno, Majken Rasmussen, Astrid Weiss, William Juel, Leon Bodenhagen, and Norbert Krüger. 2020. “Integrative Social Robotics Hands-On.” Interaction Studies 21 (1): 145–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, G., and X. Zhao. 2020. “A Primer for Conducting Experiments in Human–Robot Interaction.” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10 (1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset. In Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric ed. by Valentina D’Urso & Paoli Leonardi, 11–38. Padua, Italy: Cleup Editore.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 2004. “A Note on Laughter in ‘Male–Female’ Interaction.” Discourse Studies 6 (1): 117–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Matthew, Cynthia Matuszek, and Sean A. Munson. 2015. “Unequal Representation and Gender Stereotypes in Image Search Results for Occupations.” In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3819–3828. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J., S. Lemaignan, C. Montassier, P. Lavalade, B. Irfan, F. Papadopoulos, E. Senft, and T. Belpaeme. 2017. “Child Speech Recognition in Human-Robot Interaction: Evaluations and Recommendations.” In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 82–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J., P. Baxter, and T. Belpaeme. 2017. “Nonverbal Immediacy as a Characterisation of Social Behaviour for Human–Robot Interaction.” International Journal of Social Robotics 9 (1): 109–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, H.-R., E. Cheong, C. Lim, and K. Fischer. 2022. “Configuring Humans: What Roles Humans Play in HRI Research.” Proceedings of the IEEE Human-Robot Interaction Conference 2022. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemaignan, S., F. Garcia, A. Jacq, and P. Dillenbourg. 2016. “From Real-time Attention Assessment to ‘With-me-ness’ in Human-Robot Interaction.” In 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 157–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. On the Human “Interaction Engine”. In Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Symposium 134, 39–69. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ligthart, Mike, Koen Hindriks, and Mark A. Neerincx. 2018. “Reducing Stress by Bonding with a Social Robot: Towards Autonomous Long-term Child–Robot Interaction.” In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 305–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohan, K. S., K. J. Rohlfing, K. Pitsch, J. Saunders, H. Lehmann, C. L. Nehaniv, K. Fischer, and B. Wrede. 2012. “Tutor Spotter: Proposing a Feature Set and Evaluating It in a Robotic System.” International Journal of Social Robotics 4 (2): 131–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malle, Bertram, Kerstin Fischer, James Young, A. Jung Moon, and Emily Collins. 2020. “Trust and the Discrepancy between Expectations and Actual Capabilities of Social Robots.” In Human-Robot Interaction: Control, Analysis, and Design, ed. by D. Zhang, and B. Wei, 1–23. New York: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. W., and J. Heritage. 2005. “Conversation Analysis, Doctor–Patient Interaction and Medical Communication.” Medical Education 39 (4): 428–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metta, G., G. Sandini, D. Vernon, L. Natale, and F. Nori. 2008. “The iCub Humanoid Robot: An Open Platform for Research in Embodied Cognition.” In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems, 50–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. 2018. “Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (1): 85–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. “Contemporary Issues in Conversation Analysis: Embodiment and Materiality, Multimodality and Multisensoriality in Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 145: 47–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. K. 2019. “Talking with Robots: Opportunities and Challenges.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00369.Google Scholar
Pentland, Alex. 2010. Honest signals: How they shape our world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, K. 2016. “Sex Robot Matters: Slavery, the Prostituted, and the Rights of Machines.” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 35 (2): 46–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rueben, M., A. M. Aroyo, C. Lutz, J. Schmölz, P. Van Cleynenbreugel, A. Corti, S. Agrawal, and W. D. Smart. 2018. “Themes and Research Directions in Privacy-Sensitive Robotics.” In 2018 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO), 77–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2010. “Some Other ‘uh (m)’s.” Discourse Processes 47 (2): 130–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things that Come Between Sentences.” In Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981; Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., G. Jefferson, and H. Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53 (2): 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smedegaard, C. V. 2019. (March). “Reframing the Role of Novelty within Social HRI: From Noise to Information.” In 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 411–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sparrow, Roger, and Linda Sparrow. 2006. In the Hands of Machines? The Future of Aged Care. Minds and Machines 16: 141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turkle, S. 2016. Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. Penguin.Google Scholar
2020. “A Nascent Robotics Culture: New Complicities for Companionship.” In Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics, ed. by Wendell Wallach, and Peter Asaro, 107–116. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turkle, S., C. Breazeal, O. Dast, and B. Scassellati. 2006. “Encounters with Kismet and Cog: Children Respond to Relational Artifacts.” In Digital Media: Transformations in Human Communication, ed. by P. Messaris, and L. Humphreys. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ullman, Daniel, and Bertrand F. Malle. 2018. What Does it Mean to Trust a Robot? Steps toward a Multidimensional Measure of Trust. In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 263–264.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ghafurian, Moojan, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Arsema Teka, Shruti Chandra, Samira Rasouli, Ishan Baliyan & Rebecca Hutchinson
2024. Human-Robot Interaction Studies with Adults in Health and Wellbeing Contexts - Outcomes and Challenges. In Social Robotics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 14453 ], ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.