Evaluating How Desktop Companion Robot Behaviors Influence Work Experience and Robot Perception
Article No.: 132, Pages 1 - 7
Abstract
Desktop companion robots have attracted increasing attention, yet their application to support office workers requires further exploration. In envisioning the role of desktop companion robots as a helpful “peer” for office workers, we conducted a lab experiment (N=36) to examine how desktop companion robots’ behavior influenced office workers’ productivity, work experience, and robot perception. Participants performed a digitization task alongside robots under three conditions: (a) static robot, displaying no interactive behaviors; (b) work-along robot, mirroring the participants’ work/rest patterns; and (c) work-opposite robot, active during participants’ rest times and inactive during work. Results demonstrated that each robot condition led to distinct perceptions of the robot (e.g., as a pet, workmate, or supervisor) and peer effects (i.e., peer presence, peer support, and peer pressure), significantly influencing participants’ task experience. Our findings offer design implications for designing future desktop companion robots to better support office workers.
Supplemental Material
MP4 File - Video Preview
Video Preview
- Download
- 4.02 MB
- Transcript
MP4 File
Talk Video
- Download
- 26.73 MB
- Transcript
References
[1]
Ritu Agarwal and Elena Karahanna. 2000. Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly (2000), 665–694.
[2]
Majid A Al-Taee, Waleed Al-Nuaimy, Zahra J Muhsin, and Ali Al-Ataby. 2016. Robot assistant in management of diabetes in children based on the internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 4, 2 (2016), 437–445.
[3]
Ilaria Baroni, Marco Nalin, Paul Baxter, Clara Pozzi, Elettra Oleari, Alberto Sanna, and Tony Belpaeme. 2014. What a robotic companion could do for a diabetic child. In The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, 936–941.
[4]
Christoph Bartneck, Dana Kulić, Elizabeth Croft, and Susana Zoghbi. 2009. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International journal of social robotics 1 (2009), 71–81.
[5]
Anna Baverstock, Lorna Stewart, and Claire White. 2020. How do we encourage a change of behaviour around colleagues taking breaks?BMJ Open Quality 9, 2 (2020).
[6]
Frank Biocca and Chad Harms. 2002. Networked Minds Social Presence Inventory. MIND Labs, Michigan State University, Michigan, USA (2002).
[7]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis.American Psychological Association.
[8]
Elizabeth Broadbent, Danielle Alexis Feerst, Seung Ho Lee, Hayley Robinson, Jordi Albo-Canals, Ho Seok Ahn, and Bruce A MacDonald. 2018. How could companion robots be useful in rural schools?International Journal of Social Robotics 10 (2018), 295–307.
[9]
Joost Broekens, Marcel Heerink, Henk Rosendal, 2009. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8, 2 (2009), 94–103.
[10]
Adrian Chadi and Konstantin Homolka. 2023. Under (peer) pressure: Experimental evidence on team size and task performance. Managerial and Decision Economics (2023).
[11]
Cozmo. [n. d.]. Cozmo 2.0 Educational Toy Robot, STEM / Coding Robot for Kids — digitaldreamlabs.com. https://www.digitaldreamlabs.com/products/cozmo-robot. [Accessed 29-09-2023].
[12]
Ilenia Cucciniello, Sara Sangiovanni, Gianpaolo Maggi, and Silvia Rossi. 2023. Mind perception in HRI: Exploring users’ attribution of mental and emotional states to robots with different behavioural styles. International Journal of Social Robotics 15, 5 (2023), 867–877.
[13]
Fred D Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly (1989), 319–340.
[14]
Eilik. [n. d.]. Eilik — energizelab.com. https://energizelab.com/consumerview/eilik. [Accessed 29-09-2023].
[15]
Armin Falk and Andrea Ichino. 2006. Clean evidence on peer effects. Journal of labor economics 24, 1 (2006), 39–57.
[16]
Sotiris Georganas, Mirco Tonin, and Michael Vlassopoulos. 2015. Peer pressure and productivity: The role of observing and being observed. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 117 (2015), 223–232.
[17]
Leonie Gerhards and Christina Gravert. 2020. Because of you I did not give up–Peer effects in perseverance. Journal of Economic Psychology 81 (2020), 102316.
[18]
Manabu Gouko and Yuka Arakawa. 2017. A Coaster Robot that Encourages Office Workers to Drink Water. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction. 447–449.
[19]
Daniel Herbst and Alexandre Mas. 2015. Peer effects on worker output in the laboratory generalize to the field. Science 350, 6260 (2015), 545–549.
[20]
Guy Hoffman, Alap Kshirsagar, and Matthew V Law. 2022. Human–robot interaction challenges in the workplace. (2022).
[21]
Hanyang Hu, Mengyu Chen, Ruhan Wang, and Yijie Guo. 2023. A Persuasive Robot that Alleviates Endogenous Smartphone-related Interruption. In Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 318–322.
[22]
Andreas Huber, Astrid Weiss, and Marjo Rauhala. 2016. The ethical risk of attachment how to identify, investigate and predict potential ethical risks in the development of social companion robots. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 367–374.
[23]
Young-Ho Kim, Eun Kyoung Choe, Bongshin Lee, and Jinwook Seo. 2019. Understanding personal productivity: How knowledge workers define, evaluate, and reflect on their productivity. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.
[24]
Subhash C Kundu and Kusum Lata. 2017. Effects of supportive work environment on employee retention: Mediating role of organizational engagement. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 25, 4 (2017), 703–722.
[25]
Li-Chin Lu, Shao-Huan Lan, Yen-Ping Hsieh, Long-Yau Lin, Shou-Jen Lan, and Jong-Chen Chen. 2021. Effectiveness of companion robot care for dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Innovation in aging 5, 2 (2021), igab013.
[26]
Gloria Mark, Shamsi T Iqbal, Mary Czerwinski, Paul Johns, Akane Sano, and Yuliya Lutchyn. 2016. Email duration, batching and self-interruption: Patterns of email use on productivity and stress. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1717–1728.
[27]
Petra Nilsson. 2010. Development and quality analysis of the Work Experience Measurement Scale (WEMS). Work 35, 2 (2010), 153–161.
[28]
Gaby Odekerken-Schröder, Cristina Mele, Tiziana Russo-Spena, Dominik Mahr, and Andrea Ruggiero. 2020. Mitigating loneliness with companion robots in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: an integrative framework and research agenda. Journal of Service Management 31, 6 (2020), 1149–1162.
[29]
Akihiro Ogasawara and Manabu Gouko. 2017. Stationery holder robot that encourages office workers to tidy their desks. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction. 439–441.
[30]
Beste Özcan, Daniele Caligiore, Valerio Sperati, Tania Moretta, and Gianluca Baldassarre. 2016. Transitional wearable companions: a novel concept of soft interactive social robots to improve social skills in children with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Social Robotics 8 (2016), 471–481.
[31]
Nina Riether, Frank Hegel, Britta Wrede, and Gernot Horstmann. 2012. Social facilitation with social robots?. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 41–48.
[32]
Julie Rosaz, Robert Slonim, and Marie Claire Villeval. 2016. Quitting and peer effects at work. Labour Economics 39 (2016), 55–67.
[33]
Richard M Ryan, Valerie Mims, and Richard Koestner. 1983. Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory.Journal of personality and Social Psychology 45, 4 (1983), 736.
[34]
Selma Šabanović, Sarah M Reeder, and Bobak Kechavarzi. 2014. Designing robots in the wild: In situ prototype evaluation for a break management robot. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 3, 1 (2014), 70–88.
[35]
Caitlin Sadowski and Thomas Zimmermann. 2019. Rethinking productivity in software engineering. Springer Nature.
[36]
Masahiro Shiomi and Norihiro Hagita. 2016. Do synchronized multiple robots exert peer pressure?. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on human agent interaction. 27–33.
[37]
Zhiya Tan, Zhen Liu, Zixin Guo, and Shiqi Gong. 2023. Designing a Robot for Enhancing Attention of Office Workers with the Heavily Use of Screen. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 246–261.
[38]
Stefan Tangen. 2005. Demystifying productivity and performance. International Journal of Productivity and performance management 54, 1 (2005), 34–46.
[39]
Sam Thellman, Maartje de Graaf, and Tom Ziemke. 2022. Mental state attribution to robots: A systematic review of conceptions, methods, and findings. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 11, 4 (2022), 1–51.
[40]
Leslie Tricoche, Denis Pélisson, Léa Longo, Eric Koun, Alice Poisson, Jérôme Prado, and Martine Meunier. 2023. Task-independent neural bases of peer presence effect on cognition in children and adults. NeuroImage 277 (2023), 120247.
[41]
TRUETRUE. [n. d.]. TRUETRUE — truetruebot.com. http://www.truetruebot.com/eng/index/. [Accessed 29-09-2023].
[42]
Esther JG Van Der Drift, Robbert-Jan Beun, Rosemarijn Looije, Olivier A Blanson Henkemans, and Mark A Neerincx. 2014. A remote social robot to motivate and support diabetic children in keeping a diary. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. 463–470.
[43]
Sophie van der Woerdt and Pim Haselager. 2019. When robots appear to have a mind: The human perception of machine agency and responsibility. New Ideas in Psychology 54 (2019), 93–100.
[44]
Marie Claire Villeval. 2020. Performance feedback and peer effects. Springer.
[45]
Sarah Woods, Kerstin Dautenhahn, and Christina Kaouri. 2005. Is someone watching me?-consideration of social facilitation effects in human-robot interaction experiments. In 2005 international symposium on computational intelligence in robotics and automation. IEEE, 53–60.
[46]
Brian J Zhang, Ryan Quick, Ameer Helmi, and Naomi T Fitter. 2020. Socially assistive robots at work: Making break-taking interventions more pleasant, enjoyable, and engaging. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 11292–11299.
Index Terms
- Evaluating How Desktop Companion Robot Behaviors Influence Work Experience and Robot Perception
Recommendations
Acquiring Mobile Robot Behaviors by Learning Trajectory Velocities
The development of robots that learn from experience is a relentless challenge confronting artificial intelligence today. This paper describes a robot learning method which enables a mobile robot to simultaneously acquire the ability to avoid objects, ...
Adaptive behaviors of reactive mobile robot with Bayesian inference in nonstationary environments
This paper presents a technique for a reactive mobile robot to adaptively behave in unforeseen and dynamic circumstances. A robot in nonstationary environments needs to infer how to adaptively behave to the changing environment. Behavior-based approach ...
Development of a humanoid robot
This study presents design methodologies, specifications and control strategies for vision-guided object grasping for the developed humanoid robot, Cheng-kung Humanoid RobotIc System (CHRIS). The humanoid robot constructed herein comprises mainly a ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2024
4761 pages
ISBN:9798400703317
DOI:10.1145/3613905
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 11 May 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Work in progress
- Research
- Refereed limited
Data Availability
Video Preview: Video Preview https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613905.3651027#3613905.3651027-preview.mp4
Funding Sources
Conference
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 6,164 of 23,696 submissions, 26%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 178Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)178
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)21
Reflects downloads up to 14 Aug 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderFull Text
View this article in Full Text.
Full TextHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format