Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation

By Jennifer Goetz, Sara Kiesler, Aaron Powers. The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003., 2003

836 citations recorded by the source corpus.

A robot's appearance and behavior provide cues to the robot's abilities and propensities. We hypothesize that an appropriate match between a robot's social cues and its task improve the people's acceptance of and cooperation with the robot. In an experiment, people systematically preferred robots for jobs when the robot's humanlikeness matched the sociability required in those jobs. In two other experiments, people complied more with a robot whose demeanor matched the seriousness of the task.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Safety Research, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a8546edc5732b971fefc302bacdf496b409e1880

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Safety Research

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Whose Job Is It Anyway? A Study of Human-Robot Interaction in a Collaborative Task (2004, background): “Consistent with this idea, Goetz, Kiesler, and Powers (2003) recently reported that people complied more with a serious, more authoritative robot than with a playful robot when the task itself was serious.”
Whose job is it anyway? a study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task (2004, background): “Consistent with this idea, Goetz, Kiesler, and Powers (2003) recently reported that people complied more with a serious, more authoritative robot than with a playful robot when the task itself was serious.”
Prediction of Human Behavior in Human--Robot Interaction Using Psychological Scales for Anxiety and Negative Attitudes Toward Robots (2008, background): “Goetz et al. proposed a “matching hypothesis” to explore relationships between robot appearances and tasks, and found that friendlier tasks matched friendlier appearances [5].”
What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler? (2005, background): “[13, 14] revealed that people expect a robot to look and act appropriately for different tasks.”
How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots (2009, background): “showed people prefer more humanlike robots for jobs requiring more sociability [1].”
How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations (2008, background): “Employing a within-participants design, Goetz et al. (2003) tested people’s assignment of 12 variations of 2D robot heads to various jobs.”
A Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing the Development of Trust in Automation (2016, background): “Perhaps most importantly, physical form should meet the user’s expectations for functional capability (Goetz, Kiesler, & Powers, 2003).”
The advisor robot: tracing people's mental model from a robot's physical attributes (2006, background): “…Attributes Aaron Powers, Sara Kiesler Human-Computer Interaction Institute Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes, Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA 1-412-268-7673, 1-412-268-2848 {apowers, kiesler}@cs.cmu.edu ABSTRACT Humanoid robots offer many physical design choices such as voice frequency…”
Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots (2013, background): “Human-likeness of a robot’s appearance is preferred when it is a counterpart to the sociability of their behavior [21].”
A Cross-cultural Study: Effect of Robot Appearance and Task (2010, background): “human, a mixture of human and machine, machine) to analyze people’s perception of what the robot could do [23].”
Robotics for Customer Service: A Useful Complement or an Ultimate Substitute? (2019, background): “Studies show that employees display a more favorable attitude and a higher intention to cooperate and achieve better performance when working with human-like robots than with machinery robots (Burgoon et al. 2000; Goetz, Kiesler, and Powers 2003; Kiesler and Goetz 2002; Moreale and Watt 2004).”