Advertisement

Looking Beyond Collaboration: Socioemotional Positive, Negative and Task-Oriented Behaviors in Human–Robot Group Interactions

  • Raquel OliveiraEmail author
  • Patrícia Arriaga
  • Filipa Correia
  • Ana Paiva
Article
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we aim to increase the understanding of human–robot interaction by considering the goal orientation displayed by the robot (i.e., competitive vs. cooperative) and the role displayed by each player (partner vs. opponent) in an entertainment group scenario. Sixty participants engaged in a card game called Sueca (two robots and two humans). Each participant played with each of the other players, and the goal orientation was manipulated by the set of verbal utterances displayed by the robot. Using a coding scheme based on Bales Interaction Process Analysis, the video-recorded interactions were analysed in terms of socioemotional positive, negative and task oriented behaviours. A marginal multilevel modelling analysis yielded significant interactions between the robotic addressee and the role the robot displayed in the socioemotional and task-oriented behaviours. Overall, our main results demonstrated the following: (1) Participants directed more behaviours towards partners than opponents, although most of these behaviours occurred between humans when they were partners. (2) When comparing players in the role of opponents, participants directed more socioemotional behaviours towards robots than towards the other human player. (3) No difference in task-oriented behaviours was observed among any of the players in this condition. These results suggest the occurrence of different behavioural patterns in competitive and collaborative interactions with robots that might be useful to inform the future development of more socially effective robots.

Keywords

Human and robot interaction Groups Collaboration Competition Games Autonomous robots 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahn HS, Sa I-K, Lee D-W, Choi D (2011) A playmate robot system for playing the rock–paper–scissors game with humans. Artif Life Robot 16(2):142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson CA, Morrow M (1995) Competitive aggression without interaction: effects of competitive versus cooperative instructions on aggressive behavior in video games. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 21(10):1020–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arriaga P, Oliveira RA, Paiva A, Petisca S, Correia F, Alves-Oliveira P (2017) Description of the “Sueca” card game. Retrieved from https://osf.io/6jc9w/
  4. 4.
    Arriaga P, Oliveira RA, Paiva A, Petisca S, Alves-Oliveira P, Correia F (2018) Robot utterances and gaze. Retrieved from https://osf.io/q9gu5/
  5. 5.
    Axelrod RM (1997) The complexity of cooperation: agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aylett R (2016) Games robots play: once more, with feeling. In: D’Mello S, Graesser A, Schuller B, Martin JC (eds) Emotion in games. Springer, Berlin, pp 289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bales RF (1950) Interaction process analysis: a method for the study of small groups. Addison-Wesley, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bales RF, Borgatta EF (1955) Size of group as a factor in the interaction profile. In: Hare AD, Borgatta EF, Bales RF (eds) Small groups: studies in social interaction. Knopf, New York, pp 396–413Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2007) The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc 21(1–2):217–230Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bollmann M, Hoischen R, Jesikiewicz M, Justkowski C, Mertsching B (1999) Playing domino: a case study for an active vision system. In: International conference on computer vision systems. Springer, pp 392–411Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonta BD (1997) Cooperation and competition in peaceful societies. Psychol Bull 121(2):299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breazeal C (2004) Social interactions in HRI: the robot view. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C (Appl Rev) 34(2):181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Breazeal C, Brooks A, Gray J, Hoffman G, Kidd C, Lee H, Lieberman J, Lockerd A, Chilongo D (2004) Tutelage and collaboration for humanoid robots. Int J Humanoid Robot 1(02):315–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burnham T, McCabe K, Smith VL (2000) Friend-or-foe intentionality priming in an extensive form trust game. J Econ Behav Organ 43(1):57–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carp RA (1975) The behavior of grand juries: acquiescence or justice? Soc Sci Q 55(4):853–870Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chorney JM, McMurtry CM, Chambers CT, Bakeman R (2014) Developing and modifying behavioral coding schemes in pediatric psychology: a practical guide. J Pediatr Psychol 40(1):154–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Correia F, Petisca S, Alves-Oliveira P, Ribeiro T, Melo FS, Paiva A (2018) “I choose... you!” membership preferences in human–robot teams. Auton Robots 43:359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Cremer D, Zeelenberg M, Murnighan JK (2013) Social psychology and economics. Psychology Press, BerkeleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eastin MS (2007) The influence of competitive and cooperative group game play on state hostility. Hum Commun Res 33(4):450–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fiske ST, Cuddy AJ, Glick P, Xu J (2018) A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition (2002). In: Pennington DC (ed) Social cognition. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 171–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):143–166zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fraune MR, Sherrin S, Sabanović S, Smith ER (2015) Rabble of robots effects: number and type of robots modulates attitudes, emotions, and stereotypes. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 109–116Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fridin M (2014) Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot: a tool for constructive learning in preschool education. Comput Educ 70:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fu C-H, Zhang Z-P, Chang H, Tao J-R, Chen Z-H, Dai Y-L, Zhang W, He D-R (2008) A kind of collaboration–competition networks. Physica A 387(5–6):1411–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Groom V, Nass C (2007) Can robots be teammates? Benchmarks in human–robot teams. Interact Stud 8(3):483–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grosz BJ (1996) Collaborative systems (AAAI-94 presidential address). AI Mag 17(2):67MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heck RH, Tabata L, Thomas SL (2013) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hendrick SS, Dicke A, Hendrick C (1998) The relationship assessment scale. J Soc Pers Relatsh 15(1):137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoffman G, Breazeal C (2004) Collaboration in human–robot teams. In: AIAA 1st intelligent systems technical conference, p 6434Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jerčić P, Wen W, Hagelbäck J, Sundstedt V (2018) The effect of emotions and social behavior on performance in a collaborative serious game between humans and autonomous robots. Int J Soc Robot 10(1):115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jung MF, Martelaro N, Hinds PJ (2015) Using robots to moderate team conflict: the case of repairing violations. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 229–236Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kenny DA, Mannetti L, Pierro A, Livi S, Kashy DA (2002) The statistical analysis of data from small groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 83(1):126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kitano H, Tambe M, Stone P, Veloso M, Coradeschi S, Osawa E, Matsubara H, Noda I, Asada M (1997) The robocup synthetic agent challenge 97. In: Robot Soccer World Cup. Springer, pp 62–73Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kozar O (2010) Towards better group work: seeing the difference between cooperation and collaboration. In: English Teaching Forum, ERIC, vol 48, pp 16–23Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kuroki Y, Fujita M, Ishida T, Nagasaka K, Yamaguchi J (2003) A small biped entertainment robot exploring attractive applications. In: IEEE International conference on robotics and automation, 2003. Proceedings. ICRA’03, vol 1. IEEE, pp 471–476Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Laqueur W (1978) The psychology of appeasement. Commentary 66(4):44Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Larregay G, Pinna F, Avila L, Morán D (2018) Design and implementation of a computer vision system for an autonomous chess-playing robot. J Comput Sci Technol 18(01):e01–e01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lazzaro N. Why we play games: four keys to more emotion without storyGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lin P, Abney K, Bekey G (2011) Robot ethics: mapping the issues for a mechanized world. Artif Intell 175(5–6):942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liska AE (1992) Social threat and social control. SUNY Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Maccoby EE (1990) Gender and relationships: a developmental account. Am Psychol 45(4):513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Matsuyama Y, Bhardwaj A, Zhao R, Romeo O, Akoju S, Cassell J (2016) Socially-aware animated intelligent personal assistant agent. In: Proceedings of the 17th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue, pp 224–227Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Moshkina L, Park S, Arkin RC, Lee JK, Jung H (2011) TAME: time-varying affective response for humanoid robots. Int J Soc Robot 3(3):207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S, Al Mahmud A, Dong J-J (2013) A review of the applicability of robots in education. J Technol Educ Learn 1(209–0015):13Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mutlu B, Osman S, Forlizzi J, Hodgins J, Kiesler S (2006) Perceptions of ASIMO: an exploration on co-operation and competition with humans and humanoid robots. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 351–352Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Oliveira R, Arriaga P, Alves-Oliveira P, Correia F, Petisca S, Paiva A (2018) Friends or foes? Socioemotional support and gaze behaviors in mixed groups of humans and robots. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 279–288Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pandey AK, de Silva L, Alami R (2016) A novel concept of human–robot competition for evaluating a robot’s reasoning capabilities in HRI. In: The eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 491–492Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Peña J, Walther JB, Hancock JT (2007) Effects of geographic distribution on dominance perceptions in computer-mediated groups. Commun Res 34(3):313–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pereira A, Prada R, Paiva A (2012) Socially present board game opponents. In: Nijholt A, Romão T, Reidsma D (eds) Advances in computer entertainment. Springer, Berlin, pp 101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pohl H, Murray-Smith R (2013) Focused and casual interactions: allowing users to vary their level of engagement. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 2223–2232Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rossil S, Ercolano G, Raggioli L, Savino E, Ruocco M (2018) The disappearing robot: an analysis of disengagement and distraction during non-interactive tasks. In: 2018 27th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 522–527Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sheese BE, Graziano WG (2005) Deciding to defect: the effects of video-game violence on cooperative behavior. Psychol Sci 16(5):354–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Shin E, Kwak SS, Kim MS (2008) Exploring the desirable correspondence between robot appearance and interaction types. In: The 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2008. RO-MAN 2008. IEEE, pp 261–266Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tan Z-H, Thomsen NB, Duan X, Vlachos E, Shepstone SE, Rasmussen MH, Højvang JL (2017) isociobot: a multimodal interactive social robot. Int J Soc Robot 10:5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Taylor RH, Menciassi A, Fichtinger G, Fiorini P, Dario P (2016) Medical robotics and computer-integrated surgery. In: Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Cham, pp 1657–1684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Terada K, Yamada S, Ito A (2012) Experimental investigation of human adaptation to change in agent’s strategy through a competitive two-player game. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 2807–2810Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Thibaut JW (2017) The social psychology of groups. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Thomason J, Sinapov J, Svetlik M, Stone P, Mooney RJ (2016) Learning multi-modal grounded linguistic semantics by playing” i spy”. In: IJCAI, pp 3477–3483Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wouters P, Van Nimwegen C, Van Oostendorp H, Van Der Spek ED (2013) A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. J Educ Psychol 105(2):249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zeng Z, Pantic M, Huang TS (2009) Emotion recognition based on multimodal information. In: Tao J, Tan T (eds) Affective information processing. Springer, London, pp 241–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IUL and INESC-IDLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL) and CIS-IULLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Instituto Superior Técnico-Universidade de Lisboa and INESC-IDLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations