Touch, compliance, and interpersonal affect

Patterson, Miles L.; Powell, Jack L.; Lenihan, Mary G.

doi:10.1007/bf00987204

Cited by 89 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Touch both influences and expresses interpersonal bonding; touch can communicate emotion, and can for example also decrease stress [7]. Physical contact can increase compliance with requests [8] [9], even when a person is not consciously aware physical contact has occurred [10]. Touch between humans and other living creatures can also have a profound effect on humans' affective state.…”

Section: Background and Motivation Touchmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Give me a hug’: the effects of touch and autonomy on people's responses to embodied social agents

Cramer

Kemper²,

Amin³

et al. 2009

Computer Animation & Virtual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Embodied social agents are programmed to display human‐like social behaviour to increase intuitiveness of interacting with these agents. It is yet unclear what the differences in peoples' responses are to different types of agents' social behaviours. One example is touch. Despite robots' physical embodiment and increasing autonomy, the effect of communicative touch has been a mostly overlooked aspect of human‐robot interaction. This video‐based, 2 × 2 between‐subject survey experiment (N = 119) found that the combination of touch and proactivity influenced whether people saw the robot as machine‐like and dependable. Furthermore, participants' attitude toward robots in general was found to influence perceived closeness between a human and a robot. Results show that communicative touch could be considered a more appropriate behaviour for proactive agents rather than reactive agents. Also, people that are generally more positive towards robots find robots that interact by touch less machine‐like. These effects illustrate that careful consideration is necessary when incorporating social behaviours in agents' physical interaction design. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Background and Motivation Touchmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Give me a hug’: the effects of touch and autonomy on people's responses to embodied social agents

Cramer

Kemper²,

Amin³

et al. 2009

Computer Animation & Virtual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One possible explanation is that the touch is interpreted by the receiver as a signal that the toucher likes and trusts him or her, which is reciprocated by the receiver in the form of pro-social behavior [426]. Another explanation is that touch serves as a signal for power, dominance and status differences, resulting in the recipient of a touch being more compliant [76,395].…”

Section: Attitude and Behavior Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…One often used experimental paradigm is asking people for help or making another type of request, while either touching them briefly or not touching them. It has been found that a brief touch can make people more likely, when asked, to help pick up dropped items [206], help answer a lot of bogus personality item questions [395], give their opinion on difficult social issues [373], and return lost money [292].…”

Section: Attitude and Behavior Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The request that the robot made was for the participant to repeatedly drag a circle, displayed on a computer screen, onto a square that was displayed on the same computer screen. This setup was based on research into the actual Midas touch effect that showed that, after a touch, participants were more willing to comply to a request to do a repetitive task, such as scoring answer sheets [395], or filling out a lengthy personality questionnaire [373].…”

Section: Compliance Pilot Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One example is a study where participants were invited to fill out a fake personality questionnaire. The request to fill out the questionnaire was accompanied by a touch or not, and it was found that participants who received a touch filled out significantly more items on the very long questionnaire [395]. One not immediately obvious drawback of such an approach, however, is that it is difficult for the confederate, an accomplice (not unlikely an undergraduate student) of the researcher who is instructed to apply the relevant experimental manipulation, to remain consistent in his or her behavior [311].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations