Using Multiple Robots to Increase Suggestion Persuasiveness in Public Space
Source abstract
Abstract
Though existing social robots can already be used in a variety of applications, there are technical limitations to their use, especially outside the laboratory, and humans do not fully trust or recognize them. Considering these problems, a method to make humans accept a robot’s suggestion more easily was investigated. An idea called “sequential persuasion” was developed to use multiple robots distant from each other to deliver small messages, rather than a single robot for the entire interaction. To experimentally validate this concept, a field experiment was performed on a university campus. Two bottles of hand sanitizer were placed in one of the entrances to a building, and their usage was observed under three different conditions: no robot, one robot, and three robots. As people passed through the entrance corridor, the robots promoted the usage of the hand sanitizers. After several days of testing, it was found that the usage increased progressively from no robot to one robot to three robots, indicating that the number of robots influenced the behavior of the humans.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Psychology of Social Influence · Social Robot Interaction and HRI · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Intelligent Robotics Laboratory, Department of Systems Innovation, Graduate School of Engineer Science, Osaka University, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
Department of Information and Communication Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan
Funding
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science · JST Moonshot R&D
References (32)
Show source-provided references
1. Asimov, I. (1963). I, Robot, Doubleday. Doubleday Science Fiction.
2. Dream, Q. (2021, June 29). Detroit: Become Human. Playstation 4. Available online: https://www.quanticdream.com/en/detroit-become-human.
3. Toward a framework for human-robot interaction10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_2 ↗
4. Methodology & themes of human-robot interaction: A growing research field10.5772/5702 ↗
5. Steinfeld, A., Fong, T., Kaber, D., Lewis, M., Scholtz, J., Schultz, A., and Goodrich, M. (2006, January 2–3). Common metrics for human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.10.1145/1121241.1121249 ↗
6. Stock, R., and Nguyen, M.A. (2019, January 8–11). Robotic Psychology. What Do We Know about Human-Robot Interaction and What Do We Still Need to Learn?. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2019, Grand Wailea, Maui, HI, USA.10.24251/HICSS.2019.234 ↗
7. A robot that distributes flyers to pedestrians in a shopping mall10.1007/s12369-017-0442-7 ↗
8. On the effectiveness of robot-assisted language learning10.1017/S0958344010000273 ↗
9. Sugiyama, O., Shinozawa, K., Akimoto, T., and Hagita, N. (2010). Case study of a multi-robot healthcare system: Effects of docking and metaphor on persuasion. International Conference on Social Robotics, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-17248-9_10 ↗
10. Kuhnert, B., Ragni, M., and Lindner, F. (September, January 28). The gap between human’s attitude towards robots in general and human’s expectation of an ideal everyday life robot. Proceedings of the 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Lisbon, Portugal.10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172441 ↗
11. Herse, S., Vitale, J., Ebrahimian, D., Tonkin, M., Ojha, S., Sidra, S., Johnston, B., Phillips, S., Gudi, S.L.K.C., and Clark, J. (2018, January 5–8). Bon appetit! robot persuasion for food recommendation. Proceedings of the Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Chicago, IL, USA.10.1145/3173386.3177028 ↗
12. A new emotional robot assistant that facilitates human interaction and persuasion10.1007/s10115-018-1231-9 ↗
13. Ham, J., Bokhorst, R., Cuijpers, R., van der Pol, D., and Cabibihan, J.J. (2011). Making robots persuasive: The influence of combining persuasive strategies (gazing and gestures) by a storytelling robot on its persuasive power. International Conference on Social Robotics, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-25504-5_8 ↗
14. Saunderson, S., and Nejat, G. (2020). Investigating Strategies for Robot Persuasion in Social Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE Trans. Cybern.
15. The influence of social cues in persuasive social robots on psychological reactance and compliance10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.016 ↗
16. Siegel, M., Breazeal, C., and Norton, M.I. (2009, January 10–15). Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, St. Louis, MO, USA.10.1109/IROS.2009.5354116 ↗
17. Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Ono, T., Imai, M., and Mase, K. (2002, January 27). Multi-robot cooperation for human-robot communication. Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Berlin, Germany.
18. Shimaya, J., Yoshikawa, Y., Matsumoto, Y., Kumazaki, H., Ishiguro, H., Mimura, M., and Miyao, M. (2016, January 26–31). Advantages of indirect conversation via a desktop humanoid robot: Case study on daily life guidance for adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Proceedings of the 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), New York, NY, USA.10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745215 ↗
19. Groom, V., Srinivasan, V., Bethel, C.L., Murphy, R., Dole, L., and Nass, C. (2011, January 23–27). Responses to robot social roles and social role framing. Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS), Philadelphia, PA, USA.10.1109/CTS.2011.5928687 ↗
20. Can a humanoid robot continue to draw attention in an office environment?10.1080/01691864.2020.1769724 ↗
21. Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique10.1037/h0023552 ↗
22. Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique10.1037/h0076284 ↗
23. Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00028.x ↗
24. Robotic foot-in-the-door: Using sequential-request persuasive strategies in human-robot interaction10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.026 ↗
25. Person perception by active versus passive perceivers10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.026 ↗
26. The influence of personality on active and passive use of social networking sites10.1002/mar.20395 ↗
27. Rediscovering the imagination: Investigating active and passive visitor experience in the 21st century10.1002/jtr.390 ↗
28. Petty, R.E., and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication and Persuasion, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1 ↗
29. Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.97 ↗
30. The multiple source effect in persuasion: The effects of distraction10.1177/014616728174019 ↗
31. Information utility and the multiple source effect10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.260 ↗
32. Hayashi, K., Sakamoto, D., Kanda, T., Shiomi, M., Koizumi, S., Ishiguro, H., Ogasawara, T., and Hagita, N. (2007, January 9–11). Humanoid robots as a passive-social medium-a field experiment at a train station. Proceedings of the 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Arlington, VA, USA.10.1145/1228716.1228735 ↗