In this paper, we analyze what effects indicators of a shared situation have on a speaker’s persuasiveness by
investigating how a robot’s advice is received when it indicates that it is sharing the situational context with its user. In our
experiment, 80 participants interacted with a robot that referred to aspects of the shared context: Face tracking indicated that
the robot saw the participant, incremental feedback suggested that the robot was following their actions, and comments about, and
gestures towards, the shared physical situation and linguistic references to the dialog history indicated to participants that the
robot had learned from the interaction and perceived its surroundings. The results show that especially the linguistic and
gestural references to the shared context have a significant influence on participants’ compliance with the robot’s suggestions.
Thus, indicating that it is ‘in the same boat’ with the user, i.e. that it is sharing the situational context, increases a robot’s
persuasiveness during advice giving.
Ahmad, M. I., Mubin, O., & Orlando, J. (2017). Adaptive
Social Robot for Sustaining Social Engagement during Long-Term Children–Robot
Interaction. International Journal of Human–Computer
Interaction,
33
(12), 943–962.
Bainbridge, W. A., Hart, J. W., Kim, E. S., & Scassellati, B. (2010). The
Benefits of Interactions with Physically Present Robots over Video-Displayed
Agents. International Journal of Social
Robotics, 3(1), 41–52.
Bangerter, A., & Mayor, E. (2013). 14
Interactional theories of communication. In Theories and models of
communication. Handbook of Communication
Science, 257–272. De Gruyter Mouton.
Baxter, P., Kennedy, J., Vollmer, A. L., de Greeff, J., & Belpaeme, T. (2014). Tracking
gaze over time in HRI as a proxy for engagement and attribution of social
agency. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference
on Human-robot interaction. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 126–127.
Breazeal, C., Kidd, C. D., Thomaz, A. L., Hoffman, G., & Berlin, M. (2005). Effects
of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot
teamwork. In 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent
robots and systems, 708–713. IEEE, Edmonton, Alta., Canada.
Campos, J., & Paiva, A. (2010). May:
My memories are yours. In International Conference on Intelligent
Virtual
Agents, 406–412. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Carlmeyer, B., Schlangen, D., & Wrede, B. (2014). Towards
closed feedback loops in hri: Integrating inprotk and
pamini. In Proceedings of the 2014 Workshop on Multimodal,
Multi-Party, Real-World Human-Robot Interaction, 1–6.
Chidambaram, V., Chiang, Y. H., & Mutlu, B. (2012). Designing
persuasive robots: how robots might persuade people using vocal and nonverbal
cues. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international
conference on Human-Robot
Interaction, 293–300. ACM, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Christian, B. (2011). The
most human human: What talking with computers teaches us about what it means to be
alive. Doubleday, New York, USA.
Chromik, M., Carlmeyer, B., & Wrede, B. (2017). Ready
for the Next Step? Investigating the Effect of Incremental Information Presentation in an Object Fetching
Task. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human-Robot
Interaction, 95–96. ACM.
Cialdini, R. B. ([1987]
2010). Influence (Vol. 31). Port Harcourt: A. Michel.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using
Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA.
Clark, H. H. (1998). Communal lexicons. In K. Malmkjaer and J. Williams (Eds.), Context in Language Learning and Language Understanding, pp. 63–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical
Power Analysis for the Behavioural
Sciences. Academic.
Dautenhahn, K., Ogden, B., & Quick, T. (2002). From
embodied to socially embedded agents – Implications for interaction-aware robots. Cognitive
Systems
Research,
3
(3), 397–428.
Fischer, K., & Saunders, J. (2012). Getting
acquainted with a developing robot. In International Workshop on
Human Behavior
Understanding, 125–133. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Fischer, K., Lohan, K., & Foth, K. (2012). Levels
of embodiment: Linguistic analyses of factors influencing
HRI. In 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot
Interaction
(HRI), 463–470. ACM, Boston, MA., USA.
Fischer, K., Jensen, L. C., Suvei, S. D., & Bodenhagen, L. (2016). Between
legibility and contact: The role of gaze in robot approach. In 2016
25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication
(RO-MAN), 646–651. IEEE, New York City, USA.
Fischer, Kerstin (2016a). Robots as confederates: How robots can and should support research in the humanities. In Proceedings of the Robophilosophy 2016 Conference, Aarhus, Denmark, 2016.
Fischer, K., Lohan, K. S., Nehaniv, C., & Lehmann, H. (2013a). Effects
of different kinds of robot feedback. In International Conference on
Social
Robotics, 260–269. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany.
Fischer, K., Lohan, K., Saunders, J., Nehaniv, C., Wrede, B., & Rohlfing, K. (2013b). The
impact of the contingency of robot feedback on HRI. In 2013
International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems
(CTS), 210–217. IEEE, San Diego, CA, USA.
Fischer, Kerstin & Niebuhr, Oliver. (2020). Studying Language Attitudes Using Robots. HRI’20 Companion, March23–26, 2020, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Ghigi, F., Eskenazi, M., Torres, M. I., & Lee, S. (2014). Incremental
dialog processing in a task-oriented dialog. In Fifteenth Annual
Conference of the International Speech Communication Association.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A
room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in
hotels. Journal of consumer
Research,
35
(3), 472–482.
Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization
and understanding. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive
phenomenon,
11
1, 229–252.
Ham, Jaap (2022). Influencing robot influence: Personalization of persuasive robots. Interaction Studies (in this special issue).
Ham, J., Cuijpers, R. H., & Cabibihan, J. J. (2015). Combining
robotic persuasive strategies: the persuasive power of a storytelling robot that uses gazing and
gestures. International Journal of Social
Robotics, 7(4), 479–487.
Higgins, C., & Walker, R. (2012). Ethos,
logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental
reports. In Accounting
Forum, (36)31, 194–208. No longer published by Elsevier.
Ishii, R., Nakano, Y. I., & Nishida, T. (2013). Gaze
awareness in conversational agents: Estimating a user’s conversational engagement from eye
gaze. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
(TiiS),
3
(2), 1–25.
Jefferson, Gail (1984). Transcription conventions. Structures of social action, ix–xvi.
Johnson, D. O., & Agah, A. (2009). Human
robot interaction through semantic integration of multiple modalities, dialog management, and
contexts. International Journal of Social
Robotics,
1
(4), 283–305.
Kanda, T., Shiomi, M., Miyashita, Z., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2010). A
communication robot in a shopping mall. IEEE Transactions on
Robotics,
26
(5), 897–913.
Kasap, Z., & Magnenat-Thalmann, N. (2012). Building
long-term relationships with virtual and robotic characters: the role of remembering. The
Visual
Computer,
28
(1), 87–97.
Kennington, C., Kousidis, S., Baumann, T., Buschmeier, H., Kopp, S., & Schlangen, D. (2014). Better
driving and recall when in-car information presentation uses situationally-aware incremental speech output
generation. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on
automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular
applications, 1–7. ACM.
Kidd, C. D., & Breazeal, C. (2008). Robots
at home: Understanding long-term human-robot interaction. In 2008
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, 3230–3235. IEEE, Nice, France.
Kiesler, S. (2005). Fostering
common ground in human-robot interaction. In ROMAN 2005. IEEE
International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive
Communication, 729–734. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Kim, T., & Hinds, P. (2006). Who
should I blame? Effects of autonomy and transparency on attributions in human-robot
interaction. In ROMAN 2006 – The 15th IEEE International Symposium on
Robot and Human Interactive
Communication, 80–85. IEEE.
Kipp, A., & Kummert, F. (2016). “I
know how you performed!”: Fostering Engagement in a Gaming Situation Using Memory of Past
Interaction. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Human Agent
Interaction, 281–288. ACM, Biopolis, Singapore.
Klamer, T., Allouch, S. B., & Heylen, D. (2010). “Adventures
of Harvey”–Use, acceptance of and relationship building with a social robot in a domestic
environment. In International Conference on Human-Robot Personal
Relationship, 74–82. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany.
Langedijk, R., & Ham, J. (2022). More than advice: The influence of adding references to prior discourse and signals of empathy on the persuasiveness of an advice-giving robot. Interaction Studies (in this special issue).
Lee, S., Lau, I. Y., Kiesler, S., & Chiu, C. (2005). Human
mental model of humanoid robot. In IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation
.
Leite, I., Pereira, A., & Lehman, J. F. (2017). Persistent
memory in repeated child-robot conversations. In Proceedings of the
2017 conference on interaction design and
children, 238–247. ACM, New York, NY, USA.
Leite, I., Castellano, G., Pereira, A., Martinho, C., & Paiva, A. (2014). Empathic
robots for long-term interaction. International Journal of Social
Robotics,
6
(3), 329–341.
Lemaignan, S., Garcia, F., Jacq, A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2016). From
real-time attention assessment to “with-me-ness” in human-robot
interaction. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Human-Robot Interaction
(HRI), 157–164. IEEE.
Leyzberg, D., Spaulding, S., & Scassellati, B. (2014). Personalizing
robot tutors to individuals’ learning differences. In 2014 9th
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
(HRI), 423–430. ACM, New York, NY, USA.
Lockridge, C. B., & Brennan, S. E. (2002). Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 9(3), 550–557.
Lohan, K. S., Pitsch, K., Rohlfing, K. J., Fischer, K., Saunders, J., Lehmann, H., Nehaniv, C. L., & Wrede, B. (2011). Contingency
allows the robot to spot the tutor and to learn from
interaction. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Development and
Learning
(ICDL) (2), 1–8. IEEE, Frankfurt and Main, Germany.
Lohan, K. S., Rohlfing, K. J., Pitsch, K., Saunders, J., Lehmann, H., Nehaniv, C. L., Fischer, K., & Wrede, B. (2012). Tutor
spotter: Proposing a feature set and evaluating it in a robotic system. International Journal
of Social
Robotics,
4
(2), 131–146.
Lyons, J. B. (2013). Being
transparent about transparency: A model for human-robot
interaction. In 2013 AAAI Spring Symposium
Series. (pp. 48–53). Stanford, CA, USA.
Manuvinakurike, R., Paetzel, M., Qu, C., Schlangen, D., & DeVault, D. (2016). Toward
incremental dialogue act segmentation in fast-paced interactive dialogue
systems. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Special
Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, 252–262.
Nass, C. (2004). Etiquette
equality: exhibitions and expectations of computer politeness. Communications of the
ACM, 47(4), 35–37.
Riek, L. D., Paul, P. C., & Robinson, P. (2010). When
my robot smiles at me: Enabling human-robot rapport via real-time head gesture mimicry. Journal
on Multimodal User
Interfaces,
3
(1), 99–108.
Rossi, S., Staffa, M., Giordano, M., De Gregorio, M., Rossi, A., Tamburro, A., & Vellucci, C. (2015). Robot
head movements and human effort in the evaluation of tracking
performance. In 2015 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and
human interactive communication
(RO-MAN), 791–796. IEEE, Kobe, Japan.
Ruijten, P. A., Haans, A., Ham, J., & Midden, C. J. (2019). Perceived
human-likeness of social robots: testing the Rasch model as a method for measuring
anthropomorphism. International Journal of Social
Robotics, 11(3), 477–494.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for. Language, 50(4 Part 1), 696–735.
Sadouohi, N., Pereira, A., Jain, R., Leite, L., & Lehman, J. F. (2017). Creating
prosodic synchrony for a robot co-player in a speech-controlled game for
children. In 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Human-Robot Interaction
(HRI), 91–99). IEEE.
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text, whose context?Discourse & Society 8(2), 165–187.
Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. (2003). Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner. In Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 128–169). Routledge.
Sirkin, D., Fischer, K., Jensen, L., & Ju, W. (2015). How
Effective an Odd Message Can Be: Appropriate and Inappropriate Topics in Speech-Based Vehicle
Interfaces. In AAAI Conference on Human Computation and
Crowdsourcing, 36–37. San Diego, CA, USA.
Sirkin, D., Fischer, K., Jensen, L., & Ju, W. (2016). Eliciting
conversation in robot vehicle interactions. In Proceedings of the
Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Spring Symposium Series: Enabling Computing Research in Socially
Intelligent Human Robot
Interaction, 164–171. AAAI, Stanford, CA, USA.
Skantze, G., & Hjalmarsson, A. (2010). Towards
incremental speech generation in dialogue systems. In Proceedings of
the the 11th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue (SIGDIAL) 2010
Conference, 1–8.
Skantze, G., & Hjalmarsson, A. (2013). Towards
incremental speech generation in conversational systems. Computer Speech &
Language,
27
(1), 243–262.
Skantze, G., Hjalmarsson, A., & Oertel, C. (2014). Turn-taking,
feedback and joint attention in situated human–robot interaction. Speech
Communication,
65
1, 50–66.
Smedegaard, C. V. (2019). Reframing
the role of novelty within social HRI: from noise to
information. In 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot
Interaction
(HRI), 411–420. IEEE.
Stanton, C., & Stevens, C. J. (2014). Robot
pressure: the impact of robot eye gaze and lifelike bodily movements upon decision-making and
trust. In International conference on social
robotics, 330–339. Springer, Sydney, Australia.
Staudte, M., & Crocker, M. W. (2011). Investigating
joint attention mechanisms through spoken human–robot
interaction. Cognition,
120
(2), 268–291.
Wainer, J., Feil-Seifer, D. J., Shell, D. A., & Mataric, M. J. (2006). The
role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. In ROMAN
2006 – The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive
Communication, 117–122. IEEE, Hatfield, UK.
Wang, E., Lignos, C., Vatsal, A., & Scassellati, B. (2006). Effects
of head movement on perceptions of humanoid robot
behavior. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on
Human-robot
Interaction, 180–185. ACM, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Zhang, J., Zheng, J., & Thalmann, N. M. (2018). MCAEM:
mixed-correlation analysis-based episodic memory for companion–user interactions. The Visual
Computer,
34
(6), 1129–1141.
Zheng, M., Moon, A., Croft, E. A., & Meng, M. Q. H. (2015). Impacts
of robot head gaze on robot-to-human handovers. International Journal of Social
Robotics,
7
(5), 783–798.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Boos, Annika, Tatjana Schauer, Elisabeth Arndt & Klaus Bengler
2024. (Un-)persuasive robots: Exploring the effect of anthropomorphic cues on the foot-in-the-door effect across three experimental studies. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans 2:1 ► pp. 100061 ff.
Xu, Jiaxin, Chao Zhang, Raymond H. Cuijpers & Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn
2024. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ► pp. 810 ff.
Yi, Eunju & Do-Hyung Park
2024. Potential User Segmentation Based on Expectations of Social Robots Using Q-Methodology. IEEE Access 12 ► pp. 100295 ff.
Fischer, Kerstin
2023. 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), ► pp. 213 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.