Re-evaluating the form and communication of social robots: the benefits of collaborating with machinelike robots

Abstract

This paper re-evaluates what constitutes a social robot by analysing how a range of different forms of robot are interpreted as socially aware and communicative. Its argument juxtaposes a critical assessment of the development of humanlike and animal-like robotic companions with a consideration of human relations with machinelike robots in working teams. The paper employs a range of communication theories alongside ideas relating to anthropomorphism and zoomorphism in discussing human-robot interactions. Some traditions of communication theory offer perspectives that support the development of humanlike and animal-like social robots. However, these perspectives have been critiqued within communications scholarship as unethically closed to the possibilities of otherness and difference. This paper therefore reconfigures and extends the use of communication theory to explore how machinelike robots are interpreted by humans as social and communicative others. This involves an analysis of human relations with Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) robots and with the robotic desk lamp, AUR. The paper positions social robotics research as important in understanding working teams containing humans and robots. In particular, this paper introduces the value of tempered anthropomorphism and zoomorphism as processes that support communication between humans and machinelike robots, while also ensuring that a sense of the otherness of the machine and respect for its non-human abilities is retained.

The digital generation and nursing robotics: A netnographic study about nursing care robots posted on social media

“…A major goal in research about anthropomorphic robotics is authenticism. Successful implementation of humanoids among humans is dependent on “authenticity”, that is, these robots must be as human as possible in many dimensions (Sandry, ). Areas of research concerning androids are patient safety and their movement in hospital settings (Chen & Kemp, ).…”

Data Exchange Techniques for Internet of Robotic Things: Recent Developments

“…Energy and power metrics, quality-of-service (QoS) metrics, dependability, movability, collision avoidance, connection, and robot cooperation are the most often utilized metrics for robot communication systems. A great deal of study has been done on robot-team communication [47], [48].…”

Joint Interaction and Mutual Understanding in Social Robotics

“…This often implies projecting one's attitudes onto robots as well as developing specific attitudes towards robots, sometimes culminating in cooperating with robots "as […] with a real person" (Kiesler et al, 2008). Therefore, while certain similarities or commonalities of humans and robots seem to be a necessary condition for anthropomorphizing robots, ongoing human-robot interactions may even increase the degree to which humans perceive robots as being similar or sharing commonalities and, hence, the degree of accepting robots as cooperators (Sandry, 2015a).…”

“…For "then face-to-face interaction with a humanlike machine should prompt greater anthropomorphism of the machine" (Kiesler et al, 2008) and, in turn, support further interaction, communication, and joint interaction. According to this position, the tendency to anthropomorphize is not understood as a cognitive mistake, as is often argued, but rather as a basic tool that can be used to improve human-robot interaction: "humanlike […] social robot designs are based on the assumption that familiar appearance and modes of communication […] are the best way to support easy and effective human-robot interactions" (Sandry, 2015a). However, this has not remained uncriticized.…”

“…Pipitone & Chella, 2021 for a recent example). Usually, three types of social robots are distinguished (Sandry, 2015a(Sandry, , 2015b: human-like or android robots, animal-like as well as machine-like or "overtly other" robots. Social robots are used in different contexts and for different purposes (Table 1), and make use of different communication modalities to interact with humans, such as whole-body motion, proxemics, gestures, facial expressions, gaze behavior, head orientation, linguistic or emotive vocalization (Breazeal et al, 2016).…”