Escaping from Children's Abuse of Social Robots

Brščić, Dražen; Kidokoro, Hiroyuki; Suehiro, Yoshitaka; Kanda, Takayuki

doi:10.1145/2696454.2696468

Cited by 136 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Whitby (), for example, has argued that it is already time to have an informed debate about the ethical issues that arise with social robots—well before robots become ubiquitous in our daily lives. For example, children will bully and abuse robots in a shopping mall (a) when their parents are not around, (b) when there are few witnesses, and (c) despite pleas from the robot to stop the abuse (Brscić, Kidokoro, Suehiro, & Kanda, ). Abusing a robot may not violate contemporary ethical norms, but it is not difficult to imagine that sometime in the near future those norms will change.…”

Section: Human–robot Interaction and Intergroup Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Danger, Will Robinson!” The challenges of social robots for intergroup relations

Vanman

Kappas

2019

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Society's increasing reliance on robots in everyday life provides exciting opportunities for social psychologists to work with engineers in the nascent field of social robotics. In contrast to industrial robots that, for example, may be used on an assembly line, social robots are designed specifically to interact with humans and/or other robots. People tend to perceive social robots as autonomous and capable of having a mind. As such, they are also more likely to be subject to social categorization by humans. As social robots become more human like, people may also feel greater empathy for them and treat robots more like (human) ingroup members. On the other hand, as they become more human like, robots also challenge our human distinctiveness, threaten our identity, and elicit suspicion about their ability to deceive us with their human‐like qualities. We review relevant research to explore this apparent paradox, particularly from an intergroup relations perspective. We discuss these findings and propose three research questions that we believe social psychologists are ideally suited to address.

show abstract

Section: Human–robot Interaction and Intergroup Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Danger, Will Robinson!” The challenges of social robots for intergroup relations

Vanman

Kappas

2019

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…e cleaning robot from the Salvini et al [53] study is not alone in being abused; Brscić et al [5] observed how kids a acked a robot that was patrolling a shopping mall. A er multiple failed a empts to design robot behaviour that could stop these aggressive tendencies, the authors had to program the robot in such a way that it simply avoided potential bullies (i.e., any kid-sized human).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mindless Robots get Bullied

Keijsers

Bartneck

2018

Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans recognise and respond to robots as social agents, to such extent that they occasionally a empt to bully a robot. e current paper investigates whether aggressive behaviour directed towards robots is in uenced by the same social processes that guide human bullying behaviour. More speci cally, it measured the e ects of dehumanisation primes and anthropomorphic qualities of the robot on participants' verbal abuse of a virtual robotic agents. Contrary to previous ndings in human-human interaction, priming participants with power did not result in less mind a ribution. However, evidence for dehumanisation was still found, as the less mind participants a ributed to the robot, the more aggressive responses they gave. In the main study this e ect was moderated by the manipulations of power and robot anthropomorphism; the low anthropomorphic robot in the power prime condition endured signi cantly less abuse, and mind a ribution remained a signi cant predictor for verbal aggression in all conditions save the low anthropomorphic robot with no prime. It is concluded that dehumanisation occurs in human-robot interaction and that like in human-human interaction, it is linked to aggressive behaviour. Moreover, it is argued that this dehumanisation is di erent from anthropomorphism as well as human-human dehumanisation, since anthropomorphism itself did not predict aggressive behaviour and dehumanisation of robots was not in uenced by primes that have been established in human-human dehumanisation research.

show abstract

“…However, robots sometimes suffer from abusive behaviors from children and young people [1,2]. Abusive behaviors are also reported for embodied conversational agents [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%