nach oben

International Journal of Social Robotics

Erschienen in:

13.01.2021

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

verfasst von: Nicolas Spatola, Barbara Kühnlenz, Gordon Cheng

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

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The evaluation of how (human) individuals perceive robots is a central issue to better understand human–robot interaction (HRI). On this topic, promising proposals have emerged. However, present tools are not able to assess a sufficient part of the composite psychological dimensions involved in the evaluation of HRI. Indeed, the percentage of variance explained is often under the recommended threshold for a construct to be valid. In this article, we consolidate the lessons learned from three different studies and propose a further developed questionnaire based on a multicomponent approach of anthropomorphism by adding traits from psychosocial theory about the perception of others and the attribution and deprivation of human characteristics: the de-humanization theory. Among these characteristics, the attribution of agency is of main interest in the field of social robotics as it has been argued that robots could be considered as intentional agents. Factor analyses reveal a four sub-dimensions scale including Sociability, Agency, Animacy, and the Disturbance. We discuss the implication(s) of these dimensions on future perception of and attitudes towards robots.

Nächster Artikel The Design Model for Robotic Waitress

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

Amazon Mechanical Turk is a crowdsourcing web platform that aims to have humans perform more or less complex tasks for a fee.

Using orthogonal rotation (e.g. VARIMAX), we preserve the independence of the factors. With oblique rotation (e.g. OBLIMIN, PROMAX), we break it and factors are allowed to correlate.

This value is appropriate for most analysis [57].

Amazon Mechanical Turk is a crowdsourcing web platform that aims to have humans perform more or less complex tasks for a fee.

The original footage can be accessed from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSKRgasUEko.

To translate the questionnaire from English to French we processed as follow. First, in a forward translation, two bilingual translators have translated the questionnaire into French. As recommended one translator was aware of the purpose of the questionnaire while the second one was naïve [110, 116]. The initial translation was independently back-translated in a backward process and we conducted a pre-test on the questionnaire to ensure psychometric reliability.

Anderson ML (2005) Why is AI so scary? Artif Intell 169(2):201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2005.10.008CrossRef

Bacher J, Wenzig K, Vogler M (2004) SPSS twostep cluster—a first evaluation. Univ Erlangen-Nürnberg 1(1):1–20

Banaji MR, Hardin C, Rothman AJ (1993) Implicit stereotyping in person judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 65(2):272–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.272CrossRef

Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3CrossRef

Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179

Bowling A, Windsor J (2008) The effects of question order and response-choice on self-rated health status in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). J Epidemiol Community Health 62(1):81–85. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.058214CrossRef

Burleigh TJ, Schoenherr JR, Lacroix GL (2013) Does the uncanny valley exist? An empirical test of the relationship between eeriness and the human likeness of digitally created faces. Comput Hum Behav 29(3):759–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.021CrossRef

Carpinella CM, Wyman AB, Perez MA, Stroessner SJ (2017) The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS): development and validation. ACM/IEEE Int Conf Hum Robot Interact Part F1271:254–262. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020208CrossRef

Cerny BA, Kaiser HF (1977) A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivar Behav Res 12(1):43–47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1201_3CrossRef

10.

Chaminade T, Cheng G (2009) Social cognitive neuroscience and humanoid robotics. J Physiol Paris 103(3–5):286–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2009.08.011CrossRef

11.

Chaminade T, Franklin DW, Oztop E, Cheng G (2005) Motor interference between humans and humanoid robots: effect of biological and artificial motion. In: Proceedings of 2005 4th IEEE international conference on development and learning, 2005, pp 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1109/DEVLRN.2005.1490951

12.

Chaminade T, Hodgins J, Kawato M (2007) Anthropomorphism influences perception of computer–animated characters’ actions. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 2(3):206–216. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsm017CrossRef

13.

Chaminade T, Rosset D, Da Fonseca D, Nazarian B, Lutcher E, Cheng G, Deruelle C (2012) How do we think machines think? An fMRI study of alleged competition with an artificial intelligence. Front Hum Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00103CrossRef

14.

Cheng G (2014) Humanoid robotics and neuroscience: science, engineering, and society. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17949

15.

Choi BCK, Pak AWP (2005) Peer reviewed: a catalog of biases in questionnaires. Prevent Chronic Dis 2:A13

16.

Cicchetti DV, Shoinralter D, Tyrer PJ (1985) The effect of number of rating scale categories on levels of interrater reliability: a Monte Carlo investigation. Appl Psychol Meas. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900103CrossRef

17.

Cohen RJ, Swerdlik ME (2013) Psychological testing and assessment: an introduction to tests and measurement, 9th edn. McGrawHill, New York

18.

Colman AM, Norris CE, Preston CC (1997) Comparing rating scales of different lengths: equivalence of scores from 5-point and 7-point scales. Psychol Rep. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1997.80.2.355CrossRef

19.

Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555CrossRefMATH

20.

Darling K (2012) Extending legal rights to social robots. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2044797CrossRef

21.

Darling K (2017) “Who’s johnny?” Anthropomorphic framing in human–robot: interaction, integration, and policy. In: Robot ethics 2.0: from autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190652951.003.0012

22.

De Graaf MMA, Ben Allouch S (2013) Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robot Auton Syst 61(12):1476–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007CrossRef

23.

De Houwer J, Teige-Mocigemba S, Spruyt A, Moors A (2009) Implicit measures: a normative analysis and review. Psychol Bull 135(3):347–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014211CrossRef

24.

de Leon SP, Lara-Muñoz C, Feinstein AR, Wells CK (2004) A comparison of three rating scales for measuring subjective phenomena in clinical research. Arch Med Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2003.07.009CrossRef

25.

De Winter JCF, Dodou D (2016) Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis: a comparison of loadings by means of simulations. Commun Stat Simul Comput 45(1):299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2013.862274MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

26.

Dennett D (2009) Intentional systems theory. Oxf Handb Philos Mind 68(4):87–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199262618.003.0020CrossRef

27.

Dennett DC (1988) Précis of the intentional stance. Behav Brain Sci 11(3):495–505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00058611CrossRef

28.

Diab LN (1965) Some limitations of existing scales in the measurement of social attitudes. Psychol Rep 17(2):427–430. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1965.17.2.427CrossRef

29.

Dupree CH, Fiske ST (2017) Universal dimensions of social signals: warmth and competence. In: Social signal processing, pp 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676202.003

30.

Dziuban CD, Shirkey EC (1974) When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychol Bull 81(6):358–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036316CrossRef

31.

Echterhoff G, Bohner G, Siebler F (2006) Social robotics and human–machine interaction: current research and relevance for social psychology. Zeitschrift Fuer Sozialpsychologie. https://doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.37.4.219CrossRef

32.

Ehrlich SK, Cheng G (2018) Human-agent co-adaptation using error-related potentials. J Neural Eng. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aae069CrossRef

33.

Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864CrossRef

34.

Evans JSBT (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 59(1):255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629CrossRef

35.

Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D (2012) Social categorization of social robots: anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. Br J Soc Psychol 51(4):724–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02082.xCrossRef

36.

Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D, Hegel F, De Ruiter L (2012) Activating elicited agent knowledge: how robot and user features shape the perception of social robots. In: Proceedings—IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2012.6343858

37.

Fayers P (2004) Item response theory for psychologists. Qual Life Res. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:qure.0000021503.45367.f2CrossRef

38.

Fink J (2012) Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human–robot interaction. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_20

39.

Finn RH (1972) Effects of some variations in rating scale characteristics on the means and reliabilities of ratings. Educ Psychol Meas. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447203200203CrossRef

40.

Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P (2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends Cogn Sci 11(2):77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005CrossRef

41.

Fiske ST, Neuberg SL (1990) A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 23(4):1–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2CrossRef

42.

Foster ME, Gaschler A, Giuliani M, Isard A, Pateraki M, Petrick RPA (2012) Two people walk into a bar : dynamic multi-party social interaction with a robot agent. ICMI. https://doi.org/10.1145/2388676.2388680CrossRef

43.

Friedman JH (1991) Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176347963MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

44.

Funke F, Reips UD (2012) Why semantic differentials in web-based research should be made from visual analogue scales and not from 5-point scales. Field Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X12444061CrossRef

45.

Galesic M, Bosnjak M (2009) Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opin Q. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp031CrossRef

46.

Gorsuch RL (1990) Common factor analysis versus component analysis: some well and little known facts. Multivar Behav Res 25(1):33–39. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_3CrossRef

47.

Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (1995) Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev 102(1):4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4CrossRef

48.

Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis. In: Exploratory data analysis in business and economics, 7th edn. Prentice Hall. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01517-0_3

49.

Hanington B, Martin B (2012) Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. In: Choice reviews online, vol 49. https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.49-5403

50.

Haslam N (2006) Dehumanization: an integrative review. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 10(3):252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4CrossRef

51.

Haslam N, Loughnan S (2012) Prejudice and dehumanization. Beyond Prejudice. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139022736.006CrossRef

52.

Haslam N, Loughnan S (2014) Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annu Rev Psychol 65(1):399–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045CrossRef

53.

Heider F, Simmel M (1950) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Jpn J Psychol 20(2):67–74. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.20.2_67CrossRef

54.

Heil J, Heil J (2019) The intentional stance. Philos Mind. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429506994-9CrossRef

55.

Heise DR (1969) Some methodological issues in semantic differential research. Psychol Bull. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028448CrossRef

56.

Heise D (1970) The semantic differential and attitude research. In: Summers GF (ed) Attitude measurement. Rand McNally & Co, Chicago, pp 235–253

57.

Hendrickson AE, White PO (1964) Promax: a quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. Br J Stat Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1964.tb00244.xCrossRef

58.

Ho CC, MacDorman KF (2010) Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Comput Hum Behav 26(6):1508–1518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.015CrossRef

59.

Hofmann W, Gawronski B, Gschwendner T, Le H, Schmitt M (2005) A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 31:1369–1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205275613CrossRef

60.

IBM (2011) IBM Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure for identity correlation matrix. J R Stat Soc. http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21479963

61.

Jackson DL, Gillaspy JA, Purc-Stephenson R (2009) Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychol Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014694CrossRef

62.

Brown JD (2002) The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate. Shiken JALT Test Eval SIG Newsl 6(1):17–18

63.

Joyce CRB, Zutshi DW, Hrubes V, Mason RM (1975) Comparison of fixed interval and visual analogue scales for rating chronic pain. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00562315CrossRef

64.

Kätsyri J, Förger K, Mäkäräinen M, Takala T (2015) A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00390CrossRef

65.

Kelley HH (1967) Attribution in social psychology. In: Jones EE, Kanouse DE, Kelley HH et al (eds) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, US, pp 192–238

66.

Kiesler S, Powers A, Fussell SR, Torrey C (2008) Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot–like agent. Soc Cogn 26(2):169–181. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.169CrossRef

67.

Krosnick JA, Boninger DS, Chuang YC, Berent MK, Carnot CG (1993) Attitude strength: one construct or many related constructs? J Pers Soc Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1132CrossRef

68.

Kteily N, Bruneau E, Waytz A, Cotterill S (2015) The ascent of man: theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. J Pers Soc Psychol 109(5):901–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000048CrossRef

69.

Kteily N, Hodson G, Bruneau E (2016) They see us as less than human: metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. J Pers Soc Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000044CrossRef

70.

Kuchenbrandt D, Eyssel F, Bobinger S, Neufeld M (2013) When a robot’s group membership matters: anthropomorphization of robots as a function of social categorization. Int J Soc Robot 5(3):409–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0197-8CrossRef

71.

Kühnlenz B, Maximilian E, Marcel K, Zhi-Qiao W, Julian W, Kolja K (2018) Impact of trajectory profiles on user stress in close human–robot interaction. At Automatisierungstechnik 66:483. https://doi.org/10.1515/auto-2018-0004CrossRef

72.

Kühnlenz B, Sosnowski S, Buß M, Wollherr D, Kühnlenz K, Buss M (2013) Increasing helpfulness towards a robot by emotional adaption to the user. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0182-2CrossRef

73.

Lee S, Schwarz N (2014) Question context and priming meaning of health: effect on differences in self-rated health between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. Am J Public Health. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301055CrossRef

74.

Lewis JR (1993) Multipoint scales: mean and median differences and observed significance levels. Int J Hum Comput Interact. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319309526075CrossRef

75.

Lindwall M, Barkoukis V, Grano C, Lucidi F, Raudsepp L, Liukkonen J, Thgersen-Ntoumani C (2012) Method effects: the problem with negatively versus positively keyed items. J Pers Assess. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.645936CrossRef

76.

Lopes PN, Salovey P, Côté S, Beers M (2005) Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion 5:113–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.113CrossRef

77.

Lozano LM, García-Cueto E, Muñiz J (2008) Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73CrossRef

78.

MacDorman K (2006) Subjective ratings of robot video clips for human likeness, familiarity, and eeriness: an exploration of the uncanny valley. In: ICCS/CogSci-2006 long symposium: toward …. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr025

79.

MacDorman KF, Chattopadhyay D (2016) Reducing consistency in human realism increases the uncanny valley effect; increasing category uncertainty does not. Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.019CrossRef

80.

MacDorman KF, Vasudevan SK, Ho CC (2009) Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI & Soc 23(4):485–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-008-0181-2CrossRef

81.

Marchesi S, Ghiglino D, Ciardo F, Perez-Osorio J, Baykara E, Wykowska A (2019) Do we adopt the intentional stance toward humanoid robots? Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00450CrossRef

82.

Mathur MB, Reichling DB (2016) Navigating a social world with robot partners: a quantitative cartography of the Uncanny Valley. Cognition 146:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.008CrossRef

83.

Mavletova A (2013) Data quality in PC and mobile web surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313485201CrossRef

84.

Maxwell AE, Harman HH (2006) Modern factor analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Gen). https://doi.org/10.2307/2343736CrossRef

85.

McConnell AR, Leibold JM (2001) Relations among the implicit association test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. J Exp Soc Psychol 37(5):435–442. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1470CrossRef

86.

Meade AW, Craig SB (2012) Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychol Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085CrossRef

87.

Mishra M (2016) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as an analytical technique to assess measurement error in survey research. Paradigm. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971890716672933CrossRef

88.

Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N (2012) The uncanny valley. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 19(2):98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811CrossRef

89.

Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T (2006) Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7CrossRef

90.

Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Measurement of anxiety toward robots. In: Proceedings—IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 372–377. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314462

91.

Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interact Stud. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.14nomCrossRef

92.

Nowak KL, Rauh C (2005) The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. J Comput Mediat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00308.xCrossRef

93.

Oxford English Dictionary (2017) Oxford English dictionary online. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

94.

Oztop E, Chaminade T, Franklin DW (2004) Human-humanoid interaction: is a humanoid robot perceived as a human? IEEE/RAS Int Conf Humanoid Robots 2(4):830–841. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHR.2004.1442688CrossRef

95.

Pérez-Osorio J, Wykowska A (2019) Adopting the intentional stance toward natural and artificial agents. Philos Psychol. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/t7dwgCrossRef

96.

Phillips E, Zhao X, Ullman D, Malle BF (2018) What is human-like? Decomposing robots’ human-like appearance using the anthropomorphic roBOT (ABOT) database. ACM/IEEE Int Conf Hum Robot Interact. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171268CrossRef

97.

Preston CC, Colman AM (2000) Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Physiol (Oxf). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5CrossRef

98.

Ramsay JO (1973) The effect of number of categories in rating scales on precision of estimation of scale values. Psychometrika. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291492CrossRefMATH

99.

Rauchbauer B, Nazarian B, Bourhis M, Ochs M, Prévot L, Chaminade T (2019) Brain activity during reciprocal social interaction investigated using conversational robots as control condition. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0033CrossRef

100.

Roszkowski MJ, Soven M (2010) Shifting gears: consequences of including two negatively worded items in the middle of a positively worded questionnaire. Assess Eval High Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802618344CrossRef

101.

Salem M, Eyssel F, Rohlfing K, Kopp S, Joublin F (2013) To err is human(-like): effects of robot gesture on perceived anthropomorphism and likability. Int J Soc Robot 5(3):313–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0196-9CrossRef

102.

Saygin AP, Chaminade T, Ishiguro H, Driver J, Frith C (2012) The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 7(4):413–422. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr025CrossRef

103.

Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H (2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res Online 8:23–74

104.

Schriesheim CA, Hill KD (1981) Controlling acquiescence response bias by item reversals: the effect on questionnaire validity. Educ Psychol Meas. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100420CrossRef

105.

Schwarz N (1999) Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. Am Psychol 54:93–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.54.2.93CrossRef

106.

Shepherdson P, Miller J (2014) Redundancy gain in semantic categorisation. Acta Physiol (Oxf). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.011CrossRef

107.

Shi J, Kashima Y, Loughnan S, Suitner C, Haslam N (2008) Subhuman, inhuman, and superhuman: contrasting humans with nonhumans in three cultures. Soc Cogn 26(2):248–258. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.248CrossRef

108.

Shoemaker S, Dennett D (1990) The intentional stance. J Philos 87(4):212. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026682CrossRef

109.

Snook SC, Gorsuch RL (1989) Component analysis versus common factor analysis: a Monte Carlo study. Psychol Bull 106(1):148–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.148CrossRef

110.

Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W (2011) Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.xCrossRef

111.

Spatola N (2019) L’homme et le robot, de l’anthropomorphisme à l’humanisation. Top Cogn Psychol 119:515–563

112.

Spatola N, Belletier C, Chausse P, Augustinova M, Normand A, Barra V et al (2019) Improved cognitive control in presence of anthropomorphized robots. Int J Soc Robot 11(3):463–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-00511-wCrossRef

113.

Spatola N, Belletier C, Normand A, Chausse P, Monceau S, Augustinova M et al (2018) Not as bad as it seems: when the presence of a threatening humanoid robot improves human performance. Sci Robot 3(21):eaat5843. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5843CrossRef

114.

Spatola N, Monceau S, Ferrand L (2019) Cognitive impact of social robots: how anthropomorphism boosts performance. IEEE Robot Autom Mag. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2019.2928823CrossRef

115.

Spatola N, Santiago J, Beffara B, Mermillod M, Ferrand L, Ouellet M (2018) When the sad past is left: the mental metaphors between time, valence, and space. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01019CrossRef

116.

Sperber AD (2004) Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2003.10.016CrossRef

117.

Stansbury JP, Ried LD, Velozo CA (2006) Unidimensionality and bandwidth in the center for epidemiologic studies depression (CES-D) scale. J Pers Assess. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8601_03CrossRef

118.

Sumioka H, Złotowski J, Nishio S, Eyssel F, Ishiguro H, Bartneck C (2018) Model of dual anthropomorphism: the relationship between the media equation effect and implicit anthropomorphism. Int J Soc Robot 10(5):701–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0476-5CrossRef

119.

Sundar SS, Waddell TF, Jung EH (2016) The Hollywood robot syndrome: media effects on older adults’ attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions. ACM/IEEE Int Conf Hum Robot Interact. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451771CrossRef

120.

Symonds PM (1924) On the loss of reliability in ratings due to coarseness of the scale. J Exp Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074469CrossRef

121.

Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML (2009) The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human–robot interaction study. In: Adaptive and emergent behaviour and complex systems—proceedings of the 23rd convention of the society for the study of artificial intelligence and simulation of behaviour, AISB 2009

122.

Tetlock PE, Oswald FL, Mitchell G, Blanton H, Jaccard J (2013) Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: a meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. J Pers Soc Psychol 105(2):171–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032734CrossRef

123.

Unwin A (2013) Discovering statistics using R by Andy Field, Jeremy Miles, Zoë Field. In: International statistical review, vol 81. https://doi.org/10.1111/insr.12011_21

124.

Urquiza-Haas EG, Kotrschal K (2015) The mind behind anthropomorphic thinking: attribution of mental states to other species. Anim Behav 109:167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.08.011CrossRef

125.

Vandenberg RJ (2006) Introduction: statistical and methodological myths and urban legends. Organ Res Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105285506CrossRef

126.

Velicer WF, Jackson DN (1990) Component analysis versus common factor analysis: some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. Multivar Behav Res 25(1):1–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_1CrossRef

127.

Waytz A, Morewedge CK, Epley N, Monteleone G, Gao JH, Cacioppo JT (2010) Making sense by making sentient: effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. J Pers Soc Psychol 99(3):410–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020240CrossRef

128.

Widaman KF (1993) Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis: differential bias in representing model parameters? Multivar Behav Res 28(3):263–311. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2803_1CrossRef

129.

Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T (2018) Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Australas J Paramed 4:5. https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93CrossRef

130.

Wood P (2008) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. In: The American statistician, vol 62. https://doi.org/10.1198/tas.2008.s98

131.

Worthington RL, Whittaker TA (2006) Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127CrossRef

132.

Wykowska A, Chaminade T, Cheng G (2016) Embodied artificial agents for understanding human social cognition. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0375CrossRef

133.

Xie Y, DeVellis RF (2006) Scale development: theory and applications. Contemp Sociol. https://doi.org/10.2307/2075704CrossRef

134.

Yamagishi T (2001) Trust as a form of social intelligence. In: Cook KS (ed) Trust in society. Russell Sage foundation series on trust, vol 2. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, pp 121–147

135.

Yang GZ, Bellingham J, Dupont PE, Fischer P, Floridi L, Full R et al (2018) The grand challenges of science robotics. Sci Robot 3(14):eaar7650. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aar7650CrossRef

136.

Yarkin KL, Harvey JH, Bloxom BM (1981) Cognitive sets, attribution, and social interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.2.243CrossRef

Titel: Perception and Evaluation in Human–Robot Interaction: The Human–Robot Interaction Evaluation Scale (HRIES)—A Multicomponent Approach of Anthropomorphism
verfasst von: Nicolas Spatola
Barbara Kühnlenz
Gordon Cheng
Publikationsdatum: 13.01.2021
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/s12369-020-00667-4

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

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2021

Use of a Social Robot in the Implementation of a Narrative Intervention for Young People with Cystic Fibrosis: A Feasibility Study

The Threats of Artificial Intelligence Scale (TAI)

Qualitative Research in HRI: A Review and Taxonomy

Field Testing of Ro-Tri, a Robot-Mediated Triadic Interaction for Older Adults

Likert or Not? How Using Likert Rather Than Biposlar Ratings Reveal Individual Difference Scores Using the Godspeed Scales

The Design Model for Robotic Waitress

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten