Towards a design-centeredframework for social human-robotinteractions

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004

Jodi Forlizzi (with Carl DiSalvo, Sara Kiesler,Francine Gemperle, and Rachel Gockley)

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004

Motivating questions

What is the social impact of robotic products?

How should robotic products act socially?

How should social robots be designed?

Should they have intentional behavior?

Should they take cues from humans and animals?

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004

Understanding how robots must be designed for a social world

Aid robotic technology development

Advance dialogue on social issues

Project on People and Robots

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004

Design a new robot head

Developed PCAM method to inform designer’s intuition with substantial data

Coded 48 robot heads for the presence and dimensions of features

Findings related to perception of humanness in robot heads inform new reconfigurable head design

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004

Humanoid head

Design Recommendations• wide head and wide eyes• features dominate the face• complexity and detail in the eyes• four or more features• casing, housing, skin

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004

Attributions to pets andattributions to robotsStudy at a dog shelter where subjects read scenarios and gave reasons why a friend, a stranger, their dog, or someone else’s dog did things

Dog owners believe their dogs are social.

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Someone else's dog

Your dog StrangerYour friend

Intentionality Rating

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004

Anthropomorphism andsocial expectationsStudy of Heider and Simmel’s lifelike object film (1944)

Subjects were told they “owned” the little triangle.

They “disliked” the big triangle and told human stories in both conditions.

Confirms that anthropomorphism is an automatic process.

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004

Anthropomorphism andsocial expectationsCompared for jobs from Strong-Campbell interest activity.

Human-like robots chosen for social jobs (ex, retail clerk, hospital staff).

Machine-like robots chosen for security-related jobs (ex, assistant, guard, soldier).

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004

Compliance studies

Subjects perform “fun” and “serious” task with a robot with a “fun” or “serious” personality.

Playful robot is more effective when the task is enjoyable.

Serious robot is more effective when the task is effortful.

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004

Valerie

Roboceptionist in a computer science building on CMU campus

Provides emotional and factual communication through queries and phone conversations

Testbed for understanding how humanoid robot interactions can be natural and engaging

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004

A design-centered framework

tangible form

intangible form

human-controlled interactions fully reciprocal social interactions

Our tasks: evolve a framework toclassify social robots plus “Viennacircle rules” for their design.

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004

Discussion

SOCIAL ROBOTS

Forlizzi April 2004