Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Case-Sensitive Methods for Evaluating HRI from a Sociological Point of View

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Social Robotics (ICSR 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9388))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Evaluating and shaping the quality of interaction between humans and service or “social” robots from a genuine sociological point of view is still a pivotal methodological challenge at stake in the development of successful Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). In this regard an interdisciplinary research group, dedicated to the study of HRI in general, is developing a theory-driven method based on sociological interaction models with the goal of identifying the most important aspects in achieving satisfactory interaction experience. The method is suitable for experimental settings, e.g. in the context of laboratory research and development environments as often encountered in Fabrication Laboratories (FabLab). The method uses Harold Garfinkel’s concept of breaching experiments as a core instrument in combination with Erving Goffman’s Frame Analysis. The baseline of the method is a genuine sociological definition of Social Action on the basis of theories belonging to the paradigm of Symbolic Interactionism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Goffman, E.: Frame Analysis. Harper & Row, New York (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Goffman, E.: Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Anchor Books, New York (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Goffman, E.: Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. Basic Books, New York (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Garfinkel, H.: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Polity Press, Cambridge (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wagner, C.: Robotopia Nipponica: Recherchen zur Akzeptanz von Robotern in Japan. Tectum-Verl, Marburg (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. MacDorman, K.F., Vasudevan, S.K., Ho, C.-C.: Does Japan Really Have Robot Mania? Comparing Attitudes by Implicit and Explicit Measures. AI & Society 23(4), 485–510 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaplan, F.: Who is Afraid of the Humanoid? Investigating Cultural Differences in the Acceptance of Robots. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics 1(03), 465–480 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Goffman, E.: Behavior in Public Places. Free Press, New York (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Muhl, C., Nagai, Y.: Does disturbance discourage people from communicating with a robot? In: 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Jeju, Korea (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wykowska, A., Ryad, C., Al-Amin, M.M., Müller, H.J.: Implications of Robot Actions for Human Perception. How Do We Represent Actions of the Observed Robots? International Journal of Social Robotics 6(3), 357–366 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Feil-Seifer, D., Skinner, K., Matarić, M.J.: Benchmarks for Evaluating Socially Assistive Robotics. Interaction Studies 8(3), 423–439 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Herrmann, G. (ed.): ICSR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8239. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Burghart, C., Haeussling, R.: Evaluation criteria for human robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Robot Companions: Hard Problems and Open Challenges in Robot-Human Interaction, pp. 23–31 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Compagna, D., Muhl, C.: Mensch-Roboter-Interaktion – Status der technischen Entität, Kognitive (Des)Orientierung und Emergenzfunktion des Dritten. In: Stubbe, J., Töppel, M. (eds.) Muster und Verläufe der Mensch-Technik-Interaktivität, Band zum gleichnahmigen Workshop am 17./18. Juni 2011 in Berlin, Technical University Technology Studies, Working Papers, TUTS-WP-2-2012, Berlin, pp. 19–34 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mead, G.H.: Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press (1934). Ed. by Charles W. Morris

    Google Scholar 

  16. Luhmann, N.: Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt a.M, Suhrkamp (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hahn, A.: Der Mensch in der deutschen Systemtheorie. In: Bröckling, U., Paul, A.T., Kaufmann, S. (Hg.) Vernunft - Entwicklung - Leben. Schlüsselbegriffe der Moderne. Festschrift für Wolfgang Eßbach, pp. 279–290. Fink, München (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lindemann, G.: Doppelte Kontingenz und reflexive Anthropologie. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 28(3), 165–181 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Baecker, D.: Who qualifies for communication? A systems perspective on human and other possibly intelligent beings taking part in the next society. Technikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis 20(1), 17–26 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lutze, M., Brandenburg, S.: Do we need a new internet for elderly people? A cross-cultural investigation. In: Rau, P. (ed.) HCII 2013 and CCD 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8024, pp. 441–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  21. VDI: VDI Guideline 6220, Part 1: Biomimetics – Conception and Strategy. Differences between Biomimetic and Conventional Methods/Products. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V., Düsseldorf (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  22. VDI: VDI Guideline 6222, Part 1: Biomimetics – Biomimetic Robots. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V., Düsseldorf (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Weiss, A., Bernhaupt, R., Tscheligi, M., Wollherr, D., Kuhnlenz, K., Buss, M.: A methodological variation for acceptance evaluation of human-robot interaction. in: public places. In: 2008 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2008, pp. 713–18. IEEE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Weiss, A., Bernhaupt, R., Tscheligi, M., Wollherr, D., Kuhnlenz, K., Buss, M.: Robots asking for directions: the willingness of passers-by to support robots. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 23–30. IEEE Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sirkin, D., Mok, B., Yang, S., Ju, W.: Mechanical Ottoman: how robotic furniture offers and withdraws support. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 11–18. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bauer, A., Klasing, K., Lidoris, G., Mühlbauer, Q., Rohrmüller, F., Sosnowski, S., Xu, T., Kühnlenz, K., Wollherr, D., Buss, M.: The Autonomous City Explorer: Towards Natural Human-Robot Interaction in Urban Environments. International Journal of Social Robotics 1(2), 127–140 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Alac, M., Movellan, J., Tanaka, F.: When a Robot Is Social: Spatial Arrangements and Multimodal Semiotic Engagement in the Practice of Social Robotics. Social Studies of Science, 0306312711420565 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nagai, Y., Rohlfing, K.J.: Can motionese tell infants and robots ‘what to imitate’? In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Imitation in Animals and Artifacts, pp. 299–306 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Short, E., Hart, J., Vu, M., Scassellati, B.: No fair‼ an interaction with a cheating robot. In: 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 219–226 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Takayama, L., Groom, V., Nass, C.: I’m sorry, Dave: I’m afraid i won’t do that: social aspects of human-agent conflict. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2099–2108 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ogino, M., Watanabe, A., Asada, M.: Mapping from facial expression to internal state based on intuitive parenting. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Epigenetic Robotics, pp. 182–183 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nagai, Y., Asada, M., Hosoda, K.: Learning for joint attention helped by functional development. Advanced Robotics 20(10), 1165–1181 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Compagna, D.: Reconfiguring the user: raising concerns over user-centered innovation. In: Proceedings ECAP10. VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy, pp. 332–336 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Compagna, D.: Lost in Translation? The Dilemma of Alignment within Participatory Technology Developments. Poiesis & Praxis 9(1–2), 125–143 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pitsch, K., Vollmer, A.-L., Mühlig, M.: Robot feedback shapes the tutor’s presentation. How a robot’s online gaze strategies lead to micro-adaptation of the human’s conduct. Interaction Studies 14(2), 268–296 (2013). doi:10.1075/is.14.2.06pi

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pitsch, K., Wrede, S.: When a robot orients visitors to an exhibit. Referential practices and interactional dynamics in real world HRI. In: Ro-Man 2014, pp. 36–42 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pitsch, K., Lohan, K.S., Rohlfing, K., Saunders, J., Nehaniv, C. L., Wrede, B.: Better be reactive at the beginning. Implications of the first seconds of an encounter for the tutoring style in human-robot-interaction. In: Ro-Man 2012, pp. 974-981 (2012). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6343876&tag

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Berlin, FG Regelungssysteme EN11, Einsteinufer 17, 10587, Berlin, Germany

    Diego Compagna & Ivo Boblan

Authors
  1. Diego Compagna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivo Boblan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diego Compagna .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Robotics and Computer Vision Lab, ENSTA-ParisTech, Palaiseau, France

    Adriana Tapus

  2. Inst für Informatik, Human-Ctr Multimedi, Universität Augsburg, Augsburg, Bayern, Germany

    Elisabeth André

  3. LIMSI-CNRS, Orsay, France

    Jean-Claude Martin

  4. Robotics and Computer Vision Lab, ENSTA-ParisTech, Palaiseau, France

    François Ferland

  5. LIMSI-CNRS, Orsay, France

    Mehdi Ammi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Compagna, D., Boblan, I. (2015). Case-Sensitive Methods for Evaluating HRI from a Sociological Point of View. In: Tapus, A., André, E., Martin, JC., Ferland, F., Ammi, M. (eds) Social Robotics. ICSR 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9388. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25553-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25554-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation