Page 34 - Designing Sociable Robots

breazeal-79017 book March 18, 2002 13:56

2 Robot in Society: A Question of Interface

As robots take on an increasingly ubiquitous role in society, they must be easy for the
average person to use and interact with. They must also appeal to different ages, genders,
incomes, educations, and so forth. This raises the important question of how to properly in-
terface untrained humans with these sophisticated technologies in a manner that is intuitive,
efficient, and enjoyable to use. What might such an interface look like?

2.1 Lessons from Human Computer Interaction

In the field of human computer interaction (HCI), researchers are already examining how
people interact with one form of interactive technology—computers. Recent research by
Reeves and Nass (1996) has shown that humans (whether computer experts, lay-people,
or computer critics) generally treat computers as they might treat other people. They treat
computers with politeness usually reserved for humans. They are careful not to hurt the com-
puter’s“feelings”bycriticizingit.Theyfeelgoodifthecomputercomplimentsthem.Inteam
play, they are even are willing to side with a computer against another human if the human
belongs to a different team. If asked before the respective experiment if they could imagine
treating a computer like a person, they strongly deny it. Even after the experiment, they insist
that they treated the computer as a machine. They do not realize that they treated it as a peer.
In these experiments, why do people unconsciously treat the computers in a social man-
ner? To explain this behavior, Reeves and Nass appeal to evolution. Their main thesis is
that the human brain evolved in a world in which only humans exhibited rich social behav-
iors, and a world in which all perceived objects were real physical objects. Anything that
seemed to be a real person or place was real. (Reeves & Nass, 1996, page 12). Evolution
has hardwired the human brain with innate mechanisms that enable people to interact in a
social manner with others that also behave socially. In short, we have evolved to be experts
in social interaction. Although our brains have changed very little over thousands of years,
we have to deal with modern technology. As a result, if a technology behaves in a socially
competent manner, we evoke our evolved social machinery to interact with it. Reeves and
Nass argue that it actually takes more effort for people to consciously inhibit their social
machinery in order to not treat the machine in this way. From their numerous studies, they
argue that a social interface may be a truly universal interface (Reeves & Nass, 1996).
From these findings, I take as a working assumption that technological attempts to foster
human-technologyrelationshipswillbeacceptedbyamajorityofpeopleif thetechnological
gadgetdisplaysrichsocialbehavior.Similarityofmorphologyandsensingmodalitiesmakes
humanoid robots one form of technology particularly well-suited to this.
Sociable robots offer an intriguing alternative to the way humans interact with robots
today. If the findings of Reeves and Nass hold true for humanoid robots, then those that

15