Comparison of Philosophical Dialogue with a Robot and with a Human
Source abstract
Abstract
Philosophical dialogue is an effective way to deepen one’s thoughts, but it is not easy to practice it because humans have emotions. We proposed the use of a robot in practicing philosophical dialogue and experimentally investigated how philosophical dialogue with a robot differs from philosophical dialogue with a human. The results of the experiment showed that (1) participants talking to a human spend more time answering than those talking to a robot, (2) the increase in the time participants spend answering comes from the increase in the time participants spend speaking and is not influenced by reaction latency and pause time so much, (3) the reason for the increase in the time spent speaking is that some participants who talked to a human were likely to choose their words so as not to make the interlocutor uncomfortable and rephrased their thoughts so that they were easier for the interlocutor to understand, and some participants who talked to a robot might have thought that the robot would not be concerned even if they give a brief answer, and finally (4) it seems there is no significant difference in the depth of thought between participants talking to a human and participants talking to a robot. These results suggest the effectiveness of using robots for philosophical dialogue, in particular for people who feel nervous about talking to others.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Social Robot Interaction and HRI · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Robotics and Automated Systems
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
College of Humanities, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8571, Japan
Faculty of Culture and Information Science, Doshisha University, Kyoto 610-0394, Japan
Funding
Japan Science and Technology Agency · Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
References (32)
Show source-provided references
1. Philosophical dialogue—Towards the cultural history of the genre10.1515/linpo-2017-0007 ↗
2. Benson, H.H. (1992). Essays on the Philosophy of Socrates, Oxford University Press.
3. Student-Centered Learning
4. Peter, B.R. (2001). Philosophical Counseling–Theory and Practice, Praeger.
5. Sutet, M. (1995). Un Cafe pour Socrate, Robert Laffont.
6. Unpleasant interactions
7. Uchida, T., Takahashi, H., Ban, M., Shimaya, J., Minato, T., Ogawa, K., Yoshikawa, Y., and Ishiguro, H. (2020). Japanese Young Women did not discriminate between robots and humans as listeners for their self-disclosure-pilot study. Multimodal Technol. Interact., 4.10.3390/mti4030035 ↗
8. Conversational gaze mechanisms for human-like robots10.1145/2070719.2070725 ↗
9. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought, University of Chicago Press.
10. Beat gestures modulate auditory integration in speech perception10.1016/j.bandl.2012.10.008 ↗
11. Kidd, C.D., and Breazeal, C. (October, January 28). Effect of a robot on user perceptions. Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566), Sendai, Japan.
12. Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.003 ↗
13. Embodied robot versus virtual agent: Involvement of preschool children in motor task performance10.1080/10447318.2014.888500 ↗
14. Patterson, T.E. (2007). Young People and News: A Report from the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
15. Digital natives’ coping with loneliness: Facebook or face-to-face?10.1016/j.im.2018.12.006 ↗
16. Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7 ↗
17. Toward the Development of a Multidimensional Scale for Improving Evaluations of Business Ethics10.1007/BF00383391 ↗
18. Iio, T., Yoshikawa, Y., Chiba, M., Asami, T., Isoda, Y., and Ishiguro, H. (2020). Twin-robot dialogue system with robustness against speech recognition failure in human-robot dialogue with elderly people. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10041522 ↗
19. Double-meaning agreements by two robots to conceal incoherent agreements to user’s opinions10.1080/01691864.2021.1974939 ↗
20. Rawls, J. (2009). A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press.
21. Sinclair, T.A., and Saunders, T.J. (1981). The Politics, Penguin Books.
22. A Model for Generating Facial Expressions Using Virtual Emotion Based on Simple Recurrent Network10.20965/jaciii.2010.p0453 ↗
23. Senft, G. (1996). Phatic communion. Handbook of Pragmatics (Loose Leaf Installment), John Benjamins.10.1075/hop.1.pha1 ↗
24. Carlson, R., Gustafson, K., and Strangert, E. (2006, January 2–5). Modelling hesitation for synthesis of spontaneous speech. Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2006, Dresden, Germany.
25. Social anxiety disorder10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60488-2 ↗
26. Interpersonal processes in social phobia10.1016/j.cpr.2004.07.006 ↗
27. Perceived comfortableness of anthropomorphized robots in US and Japan10.1007/s12369-017-0409-8 ↗
28. Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6 ↗
29. Influence of the Height of a Robot on Comfortableness of Verbal Interaction
30. Rae, I., Takayama, L., and Mutlu, B. (2013, January 3–6). The influence of height in robot-mediated communication. Proceedings of the 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Tokyo, Japan.10.1109/HRI.2013.6483495 ↗
31. Application of Interactive Video Games as Rehabilitation Tools to Improve Postural Control and Risk of Falls in Prefrail Older Adults10.34133/2021/9841342 ↗
32. Human Somatosensory Processing and Artificial Somatosensation10.34133/2021/9843259 ↗