Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
International Journal of Social Robotics
Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics 7/2021

02.02.2021

Effect of Robot Tutor’s Feedback Valence and Attributional Style on Learners

verfasst von: Xin Lei, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau

Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics | Ausgabe 7/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of a robot tutor’s feedback valence (positive feedback and negative feedback) and attributional style (internal-attribution and external-attribution) on learners. A Nao robot was designed to be a dance tutor that taught participants dance movements and gave performance feedback. Thirty-six graduate and undergraduate students participated in the experiments and were divided into two groups: an internal-attribution group and an external-attribution group. Participants in each group received both positive and negative feedback. The results indicated that the participants were more likely to accept positive feedback than negative feedback. In addition, they perceived greater influence by positive feedback than negative feedback. Moreover, participants did not the demonstrate self-serving attributional bias. They attributed more blame to themselves than to the robot for negative performance, whereas no difference was observed in the attribution of credit between the robot and the participants. Furthermore, the internal-attribution robot tutor was more likely to be regarded as a training coach instead of a training tool than the external-attribution robot tutor. Finally, participants reported a higher relationship closeness with the internal-attribution robot tutor than the external-attribution robot tutor.
Vorheriger Artikel The Threats of Artificial Intelligence Scale (TAI)
Nächster Artikel The Effects of Perceived Identity Threat and Realistic Threat on the Negative Attitudes and Usage Intentions Toward Hotel Service Robots: The Moderating Effect of the Robot’s Anthropomorphism

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
2.
Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S et al (2013) A review of the applicability of robots in education. J Technol Educ Learn 1:13
3.
Kim C, Kim D, Yuan J et al (2015) Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Comput Educ 91:14–31
4.
Benitti FBV (2012) Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput Educ 58:978–988
5.
Karim ME, Lemaignan S, Mondada F (2015) A review: can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? In: 2015 IEEE international workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO). IEEE, pp 1–8
6.
Chang C-W, Lee J-H, Chao P-Y et al (2010) Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school. J Educ Technol Soc 13:13–24
7.
Han J (2012) Emerging technologies: robot assisted language learning. Lang Learn Technol 16:1–9
8.
Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Billard A (2005) Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? Univ Access Inf Soc 4:105–120
9.
Robins B, Dickerson P, Stribling P, Dautenhahn K (2004) Robot-mediated joint attention in children with autism: a case study in robot–human interaction. Interact Stud 5:161–198
10.
Ferrari E, Robins B, Dautenhahn K (2009) Therapeutic and educational objectives in robot assisted play for children with autism. In: RO-MAN 2009-the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 108–114
11.
Chen H, Park HW, Breazeal C (2020) Teaching and learning with children: impact of reciprocal peer learning with a social robot on children’s learning and emotive engagement. Comput Educ 150:103836
12.
Hung I-C, Chao K-J, Lee L, Chen N-S (2013) Designing a robot teaching assistant for enhancing and sustaining learning motivation. Interact Learn Environ 21:156–171
13.
Wei C-W, Hung I (2011) A joyful classroom learning system with robot learning companion for children to learn mathematics multiplication. Turk Online J Educ Technol 10:11–23
14.
Grunberg D, Ellenberg R, Kim Y, Oh P (2009) Creating an autonomous dancing robot. In: Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on hybrid information technology. ACM, pp 221–227
15.
Michalowski MP, Sabanovic S, Kozima H (2007) A dancing robot for rhythmic social interaction. In: 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 89–96
16.
Kosuge K, Hayashi T, Hirata Y, Tobiyama R (2003) Dance partner robot-ms dancer. In: Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No. 03CH37453). IEEE, pp 3459–3464
17.
Xia G, Tay J, Dannenberg R, Veloso M (2012) Autonomous robot dancing driven by beats and emotions of music. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. vol 1. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp 205–212
18.
Ros R, Baroni I, Demiris Y (2014) Adaptive human–robot interaction in sensorimotor task instruction: From human to robot dance tutors. Robot Auton Syst 62:707–720
19.
Görer B, Salah AA, Akın HL (2017) An autonomous robotic exercise tutor for elderly people. Auton Robots 41:657–678
20.
Thorndike EL (1912) Education, a first book. Macmillan, New York
21.
Droe KL (2013) Effect of verbal praise on achievement goal orientation, motivation, and performance attribution. J Music Teach Educ 23:63–78
22.
Fridin M (2014) Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot: a tool for constructive learning in preschool education. Comput Educ 70:53–64
23.
Lei M, Clemente IM, Hu Y (2019) Student in the shell: the robotic body and student engagement. Comput Educ 130:59–80
24.
Albright MD, Levy PE (1995) The effects of source credibility and performance rating discrepancy on reactions to multiple raters 1. J Appl Soc Psychol 25:577–600
25.
Wang M, Burlacu G, Truxillo D et al (2015) Age differences in feedback reactions: the roles of employee feedback orientation on social awareness and utility. J Appl Psychol 100:1296
26.
Morran DK, Robison FF, Stockton R (1985) Feedback exchange in counseling groups: an analysis of message content and receiver acceptance as a function of leader versus member delivery, session, and valence. J Couns Psychol 32:57
27.
Culbertson SS, Henning JB, Payne SC (2013) Performance appraisal satisfaction. J Pers Psychol 58:1053–1066
28.
Karl KA, O’Leary-Kelly AM, Martocchio JJ (1993) The impact of feedback and self-efficacy on performance in training. J Organ Behav 14:379–394
29.
30.
Ilies R, De Pater IE, Judge T (2007) Differential affective reactions to negative and positive feedback, and the role of self-esteem. J Manag Psychol 22:590–609
31.
Waldersee R, Luthans F (1994) The impact of positive and corrective feedback on customer service performance. J Organ Behav 15:83–95
32.
Vancouver JB, Tischner EC (2004) The effect of feedback sign on task performance depends on self-concept discrepancies. J Appl Psychol 89:1092
33.
Ham J, Midden CJ (2014) A persuasive robot to stimulate energy conservation: the influence of positive and negative social feedback and task similarity on energy-consumption behavior. Int J Soc Robot 6:163–171
34.
Park E, Kim KJ, Del Pobil AP (2011) The effects of a robot instructor’s positive vs. negative feedbacks on attraction and acceptance towards the robot in classroom. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 135–141
35.
You S, Nie J, Suh K, Sundar SS (2011) When the robot criticizes you...: self-serving bias in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, pp 295–296
36.
Kelley HH, Michela JL (1980) Attribution theory and research. Annu Rev Psychol 31:457–501
37.
Miller DT, Ross M (1975) Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: fact or fiction? Psychol Bull 82:213
38.
Nisbett RE, Ross L (1980) Human inference: strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River
39.
40.
Groom V, Chen J, Johnson T, et al (2010) Critic, compatriot, or chump?: Responses to robot blame attribution. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 211–218
41.
Kaniarasu P, Steinfeld AM (2014) Effects of blame on trust in human robot interaction. In: The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 850–855
42.
Lechermeier J, Fassnacht M (2018) How do performance feedback characteristics influence recipients’ reactions? A state-of-the-art review on feedback source, timing, and valence effects. Manag Rev Q 68:145–193
43.
Ilgen DR, Fisher CD, Taylor MS (1979) Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J Appl Psychol 64:349
44.
Zenger J, Folkman J (2013) The ideal praise-to-criticism ratio. Harvard Business Review 15
45.
Bandura A, Cervone D (1983) Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:1017
46.
Weiner B (1974) Achievement motivation and attribution theory. General Learning Press, New York
47.
Whitehead JR, Corbin CB (1991) Youth fitness testing: the effect of percentile-based evaluative feedback on intrinsic motivation. Res Q Exerc Sport 62:225–231
48.
Plakht Y, Shiyovich A, Nusbaum L, Raizer H (2013) The association of positive and negative feedback with clinical performance, self-evaluation and practice contribution of nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 33:1264–1268
49.
Carver CS, Scheier MF (2001) On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
50.
Klueger A, DeNisi A (1996) Effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull 119:254–284
51.
Papousek I, Paechter M, Lackner HK (2011) Delayed psychophysiological recovery after self-concept-inconsistent negative performance feedback. Int J Psychophysiol 82:275–282
52.
Boehler ML, Rogers DA, Schwind CJ et al (2006) An investigation of medical student reactions to feedback: a randomised controlled trial. Med Educ 40:746–749
53.
Shim J, Arkin RC (2016) Other-oriented Robot Deception: how can a robot’s deceptive feedback help humans in HRI? In: International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, pp 222–232
54.
Akalin N, Kristoffersson A, Loutfi A (2019) The influence of feedback type in robot-assisted training. Multimodal Technol Interact 3:67
55.
Haas M de, Baxter P, de Jong C, et al (2017) Exploring different types of feedback in preschooler and robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. pp 127–128
56.
Reyes M, Meza I, Pineda LA (2015) The positive effect of negative feedback in HRI using a facial expression robot. In: International workshop on cultural robotics. Springer, pp 44–54
57.
Wang Y, Peng H, Huang R et al (2008) Characteristics of distance learners: Research on relationships of learning motivation, learning strategy, self-efficacy, attribution and learning results. Open Learn J Open Distance e-Learn 23:17–28
58.
59.
Weiner B, Heckhausen H, Meyer W-U (1972) Causal ascriptions and achievement behavior: a conceptual analysis of effort and reanalysis of locus of control. J Pers Soc Psychol 21:239
60.
Heider F (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press, London
61.
Sedikides C, Campbell WK, Reeder GD, Elliot AJ (1998) The self-serving bias in relational context. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:378
62.
Moon Y (2003) Don’t blame the computer: When self-disclosure moderates the self-serving bias. J Consum Psychol 13:125–137
63.
64.
Liden RC, Mitchell TR (1985) Reactions to feedback: the role of attributions. Acad Manag J 28:291–308
65.
Hanington B, Martin B (2012) Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers, Beverly
66.
Peterson C, Semmel A, Von Baeyer C et al (1982) The attributional style questionnaire. Cognit Ther Res 6:287–299
67.
Kim T, Hinds P (2006) Who should I blame? Effects of autonomy and transparency on attributions in human–robot interaction. In: The 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2006. ROMAN 2006. IEEE, pp 80–85
68.
Madsen M, Gregor S (2000) Measuring human-computer trust. In: 11th Australasian conference on information systems. Citeseer, pp 6–8
69.
Aron A, Aron EN, Smollan D (1992) Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:596
70.
Moon Y, Nass C (1998) Are computers scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human–computer interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 49:79–94
71.
Li Z, Rau P-LP (2019) Effects of self-disclosure on attributions in Human–IoT conversational agent interaction. Interact Comput 31:13–26
72.
Klamer T, Allouch SB, Heylen D (2010) “Adventures of harvey”–use, acceptance of and relationship building with a social robot in a domestic environment. In: International conference on human–robot personal relationship. Springer, pp 74–82
73.
Weiss A, Bernhaupt R, Lankes M, Tscheligi M (2009) The USUS evaluation framework for human–robot interaction. In: AISB2009: proceedings of the symposium on new frontiers in human–robot interaction. pp 11–26
74.
Fasola J, Mataric MJ (2012) Using socially assistive human–robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proc IEEE 100:2512–2526
Metadaten
Titel
Effect of Robot Tutor’s Feedback Valence and Attributional Style on Learners
verfasst von
Xin Lei
Pei-Luen Patrick Rau
Publikationsdatum
02.02.2021
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
International Journal of Social Robotics / Ausgabe 7/2021
Print ISSN: 1875-4791
Elektronische ISSN: 1875-4805
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00741-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2021

International Journal of Social Robotics 7/2021 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Attitudes Toward Robots as Equipment and Coworkers and the Impact of Robot Autonomy Level

OriginalPaper

Adaptive Control of Robot Series Elastic Drive Joint Based on Optimized Radial Basis Function Neural Network

OriginalPaper

Utility of Functional Transparency and Usability in UAV Supervisory Control Interface Design

OriginalPaper

Perception and Evaluation in Human–Robot Interaction: The Human–Robot Interaction Evaluation Scale (HRIES)—A Multicomponent Approach of Anthropomorphism

OriginalPaper

The Design Model for Robotic Waitress

OriginalPaper

Factors Predicting Patients’ Willingness to Use Robotic Dental Services

Premium Partner

    Marktübersichten

    Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen. 

    Zur Marktübersicht
    Bildnachweise