Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people's loneliness in human-robot interaction

By Kwan Min Lee, Younbo Jung, Jaywoo Kim, Sang Ryong Kim. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., 2006

519 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/21de89f776d17ae0c39d0ab0f37dd34fcdf61906

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research (2020, methodology): “Following the reviewed empirical studies and based on the theoretical developments discussed (Lee et al., 2006a), we propose an AI embodiment framework that can help guide the integration of multidisciplinary knowledge on human – AI relations and facilitate future research.”
A review of research into automation in tourism: Launching the Annals of Tourism Research Curated Collection on Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Tourism (2020, background): “…humans (Mori, 2012; Walters et al., 2008), technostress (Ayyagari, Grover, & Purvis, 2011; Tarafdar, Gupta, & Turel, 2013; Tarafdar et al., 2011), and isolation (loneliness) due to reduced interpersonal interaction and increased solitary activities (Lee et al., 2006), are worthy of investigation.”
My Chatbot Companion - a Study of Human-Chatbot Relationships (2021, background): “This lack of appearance may affect people ’ s ability to establish relationships (Lee et al., 2006).”
A Systematic Review of Social Presence: Definition, Antecedents, and Implications (2018, background): “Another study wherein social presence was operationalized to focus on the extent to which participants felt like they were together with their partner similarly found that social presence predicted attraction toward a physically embodied agent (i.e., robot; Lee et al., 2006a).”
Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots (2013, background): “Perceiving the presence of a social entity when using an interactive system has been found to be a crucial factor in the process of accepting these technologies [7,35,38], as it affects usefulness, attitude towards robots, social influence, companionship, use attitude and use intention [7,16,18,38].”
Building a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm (2020, background): “…on a screen, CASA retained its predictive validity in a wide range of contexts, including anthropomorphic interfaces (E. J. Lee, 2010b), embodied agents (Hoffmann et al., 2009; K. M. Lee et al., 2006), mobile phones (Carolus et al., 2018), and voice-based navigational systems (Nass et al., 2005).”
A Mass-Produced Sociable Humanoid Robot: Pepper: The First Machine of Its Kind (2018, background): “Studies have shown that a robot’s physical embodiment and tactile communication can make it a more engaging and effective interaction partner than an animated character [5], [20] and that a physical robot is a better support for human learning gains compared to voice or video [21].”