Abstract
This paper will focus on the establishment of a social event that refers in our case study to a social android robot simulating interaction with human users. Within an open-field study setting, we observed a shifting of interactive behavior, presence setting and agency ascription by the human users toward the robot, operating in parallel with the robots’ different modulations of activity. The activity modes of the robot range from a simple idling state, to a reactive facetrack condition and finally an interactive teleoperated condition. By relating the three types of activity modes with three types of (increasing social) presence settings—ranging from co-location, to co-presence and finally to social presence—we observed modulations in the human users’ interactive behavior as well as modulations of agency ascription toward the robot. The observations of the behavioral shift in the human users toward the robot lead us to the assumption that a fortification of agency ascription toward the robot goes hand in hand with the increase in its social activity modes as well as its display of social presence features.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
The tendency of personification and the anthropomorphic use of terms in Human–Technology Interaction are also described by Tietel (1995).
HCI stands for human–computer interaction and HRI for human–robot interaction.
In social scientific literature the focus on social agents is set on modern, functionally differentiated societies offering an anthropocentric viewpoint by justifying humans as uniquely and as legally accepted social agents (see Lindemann 2005; Luckmann 1970). In contrast to the distinctions of modern society, excluding other potential agents besides human agents, certain social–theoretical approaches emphasize the self-generative and self-selective notion of social agents to process social units regardless of societies’ limitations (for the self-generative notion of systems see Bateson 2006). Besides Luhmann’s theory of Social Systems (1984), Plessner’s philosophic-anthropological concept of ‘excentric positionality’ (1975) allows one to overcome the anthropocentric view by a ‘reflexive anthropology,’ and to focus on the self-generative aspect of social units in contrast to its non-social environment.
The content, extension, intensity of the interaction, as well as the resulting relationship of the agents are not predetermined or formalized; instead the process of social interaction is emergent and self-generative.
The notion of mutually shared situations and the resulting aspect of a common relation as ‘Wirbeziehung’ are also described by Schuetz (1981:227f.).
Giddens (1984) chooses the term ‘unfocussed attention’ for the same instance.
Busily typing on mobile phones, reading newspapers, listening to music, and working with the computer are prime examples of parallel activities of potential social agents in physically shared interhuman settings.
Studies on sociality or communication events mostly focus on social presence situations without taking into account the other different levels of co-location and co-presence presented in this paper, which cause different degrees of social involvement.
Kieserling (1999) defines reciprocal perception with its component for co-defining a shared environmental situation as inferior and minimal value cases of sociality (in German ‘Minimalfall von Sozialität’).
Respectively, as referred to in Table 1, as ‘communicative sociality.’
In order to overcome language barriers, German quotations were translated into English in this paper.
Enfield and Levinson (2006) also determine culture, cognition, and interaction as ‘Roots of human sociality.’
References
Arkin RC, Fujita M, Takagi T, Hasegawa R (2003) An ethological and emotional basis for human–robot interaction. Robot Auton Syst 42:191–201
Bateson G (2006) Einführung: Die Wissenschaft von Geist und Ordnung. In: Bateson G, Holl HG (eds) Ökologie des Geistes. Anthropologische, psychologische, biologische und epistemologische Perspektiven. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main, pp 15–31
Beaulieu A (2010) Research note: from co-location to co-presence: shifts in the use of ethnography for the study of knowledge. Soc Stud Sci 40:453–470
Chartrand T, Fitzsimons G, Fitzsimons G (2008) Automatic effects of anthropomorphized objects on behavior. Soc Cogn 26:198–209
Chovil N (1997) Facing others: a social communicative perspective on facial displays. In: Russell JA, Fernández-Dols JM (eds) The psychology of facial expression. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 321–333
Davis M (ed) (1982) Interaction rhythms. Periodicity in communicative behavior. Human Sciences Press Inc, New York
Ducheneaut N, Wen M-H, Yee N, Wadley G (2009) Body and mind: a study of avatar personalization in three virtual worlds. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, April 4–9, 2009, Boston, pp 1151–1160
Duffy B (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42:177–190
Enfield NJ, Levinson SC (eds) (2006) Roots of human sociality: culture, cognition and interaction. Berg, Oxford
Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge
Goffman E (1963) Behaviour in public places: notes on the social organization of gatherings. Free Press, New York
Goffman E (1971) Verhalten in sozialen Situationen: Strukturen und Regeln der Interaktion im öffentlichen Raum. Bertelsmann, Gütersloh
Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harper and Row, London
Goffman E (2010a) Interaktionsrituale. Über Verhalten in direkter Kommunikation. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main
Goffman E (2010b) Relations in public: microstudies of the public order. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick
Hall ET (1982) The hidden dimension. Anchor Books, New York
Ishiguro H, Nishio S (2007) Building artificial humans to understand humans. Int J Artif Organs 10:133–142
Kahn JPH, Ishiguro H, Friedman B, Kanda T, Freier NG, Severson RL, Miller J (2007) What is a human? Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human–robot interaction. Interact Stud 8:363–390
Kendon A (2009) Conducting interaction: patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kieserling A (1999) Kommunikation unter Anwesenden: Studien über Interaktionssysteme. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main
Knorr Cetina K (2006) Sozialität mit Objekten. Soziale Beziehungen in post-traditionalen Wissensgesellschaften. In: Tänzler D, Knoblauch H, Soeffner H-G (eds) Zur Kritik der Wissensgesellschaft. Konstanz, UVK, pp 83–120
LaFrance M (1982) Posture mirroring and rapport. In: Davis M (ed) Interaction rhythms. Periodicity in communicative behavior. Human Sciences Press Inc, New York, pp 279–298
Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Open University Press, Milton Keynes
Lindemann G (2005) The analysis of the borders of the social world: a challenge for sociological theory. J Theory Soc Behav 35:69–98
Lindemann G (2009) Das Soziale von seinen Grenzen her denken. Velbrück, Weilerswist
Lindemann G (2010) The living human body from the perspective of the shared world (Mitwelt). J Specul Philos 24:275–291
Luckmann T (1970) Über die Grenzen der Sozialwelt. In: Dreher J (ed) Lebenswelt, Identität und Gesellschaft. Schriften zur Wissens- und Protosoziologie, UVK, Konstanz, pp 62–90
Luhmann N (1984) Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main
Pickett C, Gardner WL, Knowles M (2004) Getting a cue: the need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30:1095–1107
Plessner H (1975) Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch. Gruyter, Berlin
Rammert W (2008) Where the action is: distributed agency between humans, machines, and programs. In: Seifert W, Kim JH, Moore A (eds) Paradoxes of interactivity. Transkript, Bielefeld
Rammert W, Schulz-Schaeffer I (2002) Technik und Handeln: Wenn soziales Handeln sich auf menschliches Verhalten und technische Artefakte verteilt. In: Rammert W, Schulz-Schaeffer I (eds) Können Maschinen handeln?. Campus, Frankfurt/Main
Schuetz A (1923/1981) Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt: Eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie, 6th edn. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main
Snowdon PF (2001) Persons, animals, and bodies. In: Bermúdez JL (ed) The body and the self, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 71–86
Straub I, Nishio S, Ishiguro H (2010) Incorporated identity in interaction with a teleoperated android robot: a case study. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 13–15 Sept, 2010, Viareggio/Italy, pp 119–124
Tietel E (1995) Das Zwischending: Die Anthropomorphisierung und Personifizierung des Computers. Roderer, Regensburg
Weber M (1922/2002) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Acknowledgments
This study was made possible through the kind help of Hiroshi Ishiguro and Shuichi Nishio of ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communication Laboratories in Kyoto, Japan, and supported by Grant-in Aid for Scientific Research (S), KAKENHI (20220002), supporting me with a fellowship from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). Furthermore, the study was supported by the ARS Electronica staff and the management of the Café Cubus in Linz, who provided the settings for the experiments. We are grateful to the experimental helpers, visitors and volunteer workers during the exhibition of Geminoid HI-1 at the Café Cubus and the ARS Electronica Building. For critical comments and discussions I am thankful to the members of the project ‘Development of Humanoid and Service Robots: An International Comparative Research Project—Europe and Japan,’ funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Last but not least I would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments on this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Straub, I. ‘It looks like a human!’ The interrelation of social presence, interaction and agency ascription: a case study about the effects of an android robot on social agency ascription. AI & Soc 31, 553–571 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0632-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0632-5