Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
129 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
28 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Robot Vulnerability and the Elicitation of User Empathy (2401.02684v1)

Published 5 Jan 2024 in cs.RO and cs.HC

Abstract: This paper describes a between-subjects Amazon Mechanical Turk study (n = 220) that investigated how a robot's affective narrative influences its ability to elicit empathy in human observers. We first conducted a pilot study to develop and validate the robot's affective narratives. Then, in the full study, the robot used one of three different affective narrative strategies (funny, sad, neutral) while becoming less functional at its shopping task over the course of the interaction. As the functionality of the robot degraded, participants were repeatedly asked if they were willing to help the robot. The results showed that conveying a sad narrative significantly influenced the participants' willingness to help the robot throughout the interaction and determined whether participants felt empathetic toward the robot throughout the interaction. Furthermore, a higher amount of past experience with robots also increased the participants' willingness to help the robot. This work suggests that affective narratives can be useful in short-term interactions that benefit from emotional connections between humans and robots.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (34)
  1. M. L. Traeger, S. S. Sebo, M. Jung, B. Scassellati, and N. A. Christakis, “Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human-robot team,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117, no. 12, pp. 6370–6375, 2020.
  2. M. J. Matarić and B. Scassellati, “Socially assistive robotics,” in Springer Handbook of Robotics, K. O. Siciliano B., Ed.   Springer, 2016, pp. 1973–1994.
  3. C. Harvey and The Society for Philosophy in the Contemporary World, “Sex Robots and Solipsism: Towards a Culture of Empty Contact,” Philosophy in the Contemporary World, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 80–93, 2015.
  4. F. Hegel, S. Krach, T. Kircher, B. Wrede, and G. Sagerer, “Theory of mind (ToM) on robots: a functional neuroimaging study,” in Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Human robot interaction - HRI ’08.   Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ACM Press, 2008, p. 335.
  5. K. Stubbs, P. J. Hinds, and D. Wettergreen, “Autonomy and Common Ground in Human-Robot Interaction: A Field Study,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 42–50, Mar. 2007.
  6. K. Crowston, “Amazon mechanical turk: A research tool for organizations and information systems scholars,” in Shaping the Future of ICT Research. Methods and Approaches, A. Bhattacherjee and B. Fitzgerald, Eds.   Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 210–221.
  7. B. L. Omdahl, “Empathy,” in Cognitive appraisal, emotion, and empathy.   Psychology Press, 2014, pp. 13–35.
  8. J. B. Covitz and H. H. Covitz, “Salman Akhtar: Listening to Others: Developmental and Clinical Aspects of Empathy and Attunement,” The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 376–380, Dec. 2009.
  9. L. Carr, M. Iacoboni, M.-C. Dubeau, J. C. Mazziotta, and G. L. Lenzi, “Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: A relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic areas,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 100, no. 9, pp. 5497–5502, Apr. 2003.
  10. H. Riess, J. M. Kelley, R. Bailey, P. M. Konowitz, and S. T. Gray, “Improving Empathy and Relational Skills in Otolaryngology Residents: A Pilot Study,” Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 120–122, Jan. 2011.
  11. A. Tapus and M. Matarić, “Emulating empathy in socially assistive robotics,” in AAAI spring symposium: multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics, 2007, pp. 93–96.
  12. I. Leite, A. Pereira, S. Mascarenhas, C. Martinho, R. Prada, and A. Paiva, “The influence of empathy in human-robot relations,” International Journal of Human Computer Studies, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 250–260, 2013.
  13. I. Leite, G. Castellano, A. Pereira, C. Martinho, and A. Paiva, “Modelling empathic behaviour in a robotic game companion for children: An ethnographic study in real-world settings,” in HRI’12 - Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2012, pp. 367–374.
  14. J. James, C. I. Watson, and B. MacDonald, “Artificial Empathy in Social Robots: An analysis of Emotions in Speech,” in 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).   Nanjing: IEEE, Aug. 2018, pp. 632–637.
  15. E. S. Short, K. Sittig-Boyd, and M. J. Matarić, “Modeling Moderation for Multi-Party Socially Assistive Robotics,” in RO-MAN 2016, 2016.
  16. E. S. Short, K. Swift-Spong, H. Shim, K. M. Wisniewski, D. K. Zak, S. Wu, E. Zelinski, and M. J. Matarić, “Understanding social interactions with socially assistive robotics in intergenerational family groups,” in 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2017, pp. 236–241.
  17. E. Short and M. J. Mataric, “Robot moderation of a collaborative game: Towards socially assistive robotics in group interactions,” in 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2017, pp. 385–390.
  18. E. Deng, B. Mutlu, and M. Matarić, “Embodiment in socially interactive robots,” Foundations and Trends in Robotics, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 251–356, 2019.
  19. J. Connolly, V. Mocz, N. Salomons, J. Valdez, N. Tsoi, B. Scassellati, and M. Vazquez, “Prompting prosocial human interventions in response to robot mistreatment,” in ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction.   IEEE Computer Society, Mar. 2020, pp. 211–220.
  20. L. Mathur, M. Spitale, H. Xi, J. Li, and M. J. Matarić, “Modeling user empathy elicited by a robot storyteller,” in 9th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), 2021.
  21. M. Hojat, M. J. Vergare, K. Maxwell, G. Brainard, S. K. Herrine, G. A. Isenberg, J. Veloski, and J. S. Gonnella, “The Devil is in the Third Year: A Longitudinal Study of Erosion of Empathy in Medical School:,” Academic Medicine, vol. 84, no. 9, pp. 1182–1191, Sep. 2009.
  22. M. Spitale, S. Okamoto, M. Gupta, and H. A. O. Xi, “Socially assistive robots as storytellers that elicit empathy,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 37, no. 4, 2018.
  23. “Kuri by mayfield robotics,” https://www.heykuri.com/explore-kuri, accessed: 2022-09-30.
  24. S. D. Gosling, P. J. Rentfrow, and W. B. Swann, “A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains,” Journal of Research in Personality, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 504–528, 2003.
  25. A. M. Rosenthal-Von Der Pütten, F. P. Schulte, S. C. Eimler, S. Sobieraj, L. Hoffmann, S. Maderwald, M. Brand, and N. C. Krämer, “Investigations on empathy towards humans and robots using fMRI,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 33, pp. 201–212, 2014.
  26. P. J. Zak, “Why inspiring stories make us react: the neuroscience of narrative,” Cerebrum : the Dana forum on brain science, vol. 2015, pp. 2–2, Feb. 2015, publisher: The Dana Foundation.
  27. J. Xu and A. Howard, “The Impact of First Impressions on Human- Robot Trust During Problem-Solving Scenarios,” in 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).   Nanjing: IEEE, Aug. 2018, pp. 435–441.
  28. V. C. Pham, Y. Lim, H.-D. Bui, Y. Tan, N. Y. Chong, and A. Sgorbissa, “An Experimental Study on Culturally Competent Robot for Smart Home Environment,” in Advanced Information Networking and Applications, L. Barolli, F. Amato, F. Moscato, T. Enokido, and M. Takizawa, Eds.   Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, vol. 1151, pp. 369–380, series Title: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing.
  29. N. Butrus and R. T. Witenberg, “Some personality predictors of tolerance to human diversity: The roles of openness, agreeableness, and empathy,” Australian Psychologist, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 290–298, 2013.
  30. R. R. McCrae and P. T. Costa, “Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 81–90, 1987.
  31. T. Mooradian, M. Davis, and K. Matzler, “Dispositional empathy and the hierarchical structure of personality,” American Journal of Psychology, vol. 124, no. 1, pp. 99–109, 2011.
  32. W. G. Graziano, M. M. Habashi, B. E. Sheese, and R. M. Tobin, “Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person × situation perspective,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 583–599, 2007.
  33. R. L. Severson and S. R. Woodard, “Imagining Others’ Minds: The Positive Relation Between Children’s Role Play and Anthropomorphism,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, 2018.
  34. C.-L. Yu and T.-L. Chou, “A Dual Route Model of Empathy: A Neurobiological Prospective,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, 2018.
Citations (4)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now