, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 109–115 | Cite as

The influence of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment when interacting with robots

  • Christoph BartneckEmail author
  • Timo Bleeker
  • Jeroen Bun
  • Pepijn Fens
  • Lynyrd Riet
Open Access
Research Article


Medical robots are expected to help with providing care in an aging society. The degree to which patients experience embarrassment in a medical examination might be influenced by the robots’ level of anthropomorphism. The results of our preliminary study show that young, healthy, Dutch university students were less embarrassed when interacting with a technical box than with a robot. Highly human-like robots might therefore not be the best choice for a medical robot. This result also shows that the robot was perceived as a person more so than the technical box. The next step is to compare the robot to a real nurse or doctor. If patients are less embarrassed when interacting with a robot, then, potentially, patients will be less likely to defer important medical examinations when carried out by medical robots.


medical robots embarrassment anthropomorphism emotions 


  1. [1]
    United Nations, World Robotics 2008. Geneva: United Nations Publication, 2008.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    P. Deegan, R. Grupen, A. Hanson, E. Horrell, S. Ou, E. Riseman, S. Sen, B. Thibodeau, A. Williams, and D. Xie, “Mobile manipulators for assisted living in residential settings,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 179–192, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    K. Wada, T. Shibata, T. Saito, and K. Tanie, “Effects of robotassisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day service center,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 92, no. 11, pp. 1780–1788, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    I. Rosofsky, “The robots have dawned: Meet the carebot,” June 28, 2009 2009.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Agarwal, A. W. Levinson, M. Allaf, D. V. Makarov, A. Nason, and L.-M. Su, “The roboconsultant: Telementoring and remote presence in the operating room during minimally invasive urologic surgeries using a novel mobile robotic interface,” Urology, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 970–974, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    C. Bartneck and J. Forlizzi, “Shaping human-robot interaction — understanding the social aspects of intelligent robotic products,” in The Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI2004), E. Dykstra-Erickson and M. Tscheligi, Eds. Vienna: ACM Press, 2004, pp. 1731–1732.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Bartneck, T. Kanda, O. Mubin, and A. A. Mahmud, “The perception of animacy and intelligence based on a robot’s embodiment,” in Humanoids 2007. Pittsburgh: IEEE, 2007, pp. 300–305.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Kahn, H. Ishiguro, B. Friedman, and T. Kanda, “What is a human? — toward psychological benchmarks in the field of humanrobot interaction,” in The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2006. Salt Lake City: IEEE, 2006, pp. 364–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    C. Harris, “Embarrassment: A form of social pain,” American Scientist, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 524–533, 2006.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. S. Miller, Embarrassment: poise and peril in everyday life. New York: Guilford Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    T. Jones and D. Adams, Douglas Adams’s Starship Titanic: a novel. London: Pan Books, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    L. D. Riek, T.-C. Rabinowitch, B. Chakrabarti, and P. Robinson, “How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots,” in Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. La Jolla, California, USA: ACM, 2009, pp. 245–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. Keltner, “Signs of appeasement: Evidence for the distinct displays of embarrassment, amusement, and shame.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 441–454, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. Costa, W. Dinsbach, A. S. R. Manstead, and P. E. R. Bitti, “Social presence, embarrassment, and nonverbal behavior,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 225–240, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    K. M. Kelly and W. H. Jones, “Assessment of dispositional embarrassability,” Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 307–333, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    D. G. Garson, “Quantitative research in public administration,” May 27th, 2009 2009.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J. Nunally, Psychometric Theory. New York: Mc-Graw Hill, 1967.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. Turkle, “Cyborg babies and cy-dough-plasm: Ideas about life in the culture of simulation,” in Cyborg babies: from techno-sex to techno-tots, R. Davis-Floyd and J. Dumit, Eds. New York: Routledge, 1998, pp. 317–329.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    A. Powers, S. Kiesler, S. Fussell, and C. Torrey, “Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. Arlington, Virginia, USA: ACM, 2007, pp. 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Wien 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Bartneck
    • 1
    Email author
  • Timo Bleeker
    • 1
  • Jeroen Bun
    • 1
  • Pepijn Fens
    • 1
  • Lynyrd Riet
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations