A Compliance–Reactance Framework for Evaluating Human-Robot Interaction
When do we follow requests and recommendations and which ones do we choose not to comply with? This publication combines definitions of compliance and reactance as behaviours and as affective processes in one model for application to human-robot interaction. The framework comprises three steps: huma...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022-05-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Robotics and AI |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2022.733504/full |
| _version_ | 1818213141231697920 |
|---|---|
| author | Annika Boos Olivia Herzog Jakob Reinhardt Klaus Bengler Markus Zimmermann |
| author_facet | Annika Boos Olivia Herzog Jakob Reinhardt Klaus Bengler Markus Zimmermann |
| author_sort | Annika Boos |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | When do we follow requests and recommendations and which ones do we choose not to comply with? This publication combines definitions of compliance and reactance as behaviours and as affective processes in one model for application to human-robot interaction. The framework comprises three steps: human perception, comprehension, and selection of an action following a cue given by a robot. The paper outlines the application of the model in different study settings such as controlled experiments that allow for the assessment of cognition as well as observational field studies that lack this possibility. Guidance for defining and measuring compliance and reactance is outlined and strategies for improving robot behaviour are derived for each step in the process model. Design recommendations for each step are condensed into three principles on information economy, adequacy, and transparency. In summary, we suggest that in order to maximise the probability of compliance with a cue and to avoid reactance, interaction designers should aim for a high probability of perception, a high probability of comprehension and prevent negative affect. Finally, an example application is presented that uses existing data from a laboratory experiment in combination with data collected in an online survey to outline how the model can be applied to evaluate a new technology or interaction strategy using the concepts of compliance and reactance as behaviours and affective constructs. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T05:59:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-423f646f6fb44714b7850805d22c70a5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2296-9144 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T05:59:34Z |
| publishDate | 2022-05-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Robotics and AI |
| spelling | doaj.art-423f646f6fb44714b7850805d22c70a52022-12-22T00:35:27ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Robotics and AI2296-91442022-05-01910.3389/frobt.2022.733504733504A Compliance–Reactance Framework for Evaluating Human-Robot InteractionAnnika Boos0Olivia Herzog1Jakob Reinhardt2Klaus Bengler3Markus Zimmermann4TUM School of Engineering and Design, Institute of Ergonomics, Technical University of Munich, Garching, GermanyTUM School of Engineering and Design, Institute of Ergonomics, Technical University of Munich, Garching, GermanyTUM School of Engineering and Design, Institute of Ergonomics, Technical University of Munich, Garching, GermanyTUM School of Engineering and Design, Institute of Ergonomics, Technical University of Munich, Garching, GermanyStarship Technologies, San Francisco, CA, United StatesWhen do we follow requests and recommendations and which ones do we choose not to comply with? This publication combines definitions of compliance and reactance as behaviours and as affective processes in one model for application to human-robot interaction. The framework comprises three steps: human perception, comprehension, and selection of an action following a cue given by a robot. The paper outlines the application of the model in different study settings such as controlled experiments that allow for the assessment of cognition as well as observational field studies that lack this possibility. Guidance for defining and measuring compliance and reactance is outlined and strategies for improving robot behaviour are derived for each step in the process model. Design recommendations for each step are condensed into three principles on information economy, adequacy, and transparency. In summary, we suggest that in order to maximise the probability of compliance with a cue and to avoid reactance, interaction designers should aim for a high probability of perception, a high probability of comprehension and prevent negative affect. Finally, an example application is presented that uses existing data from a laboratory experiment in combination with data collected in an online survey to outline how the model can be applied to evaluate a new technology or interaction strategy using the concepts of compliance and reactance as behaviours and affective constructs.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2022.733504/fullroboticshuman-robot interactioncompliancereactancetrust |
| spellingShingle | Annika Boos Olivia Herzog Jakob Reinhardt Klaus Bengler Markus Zimmermann A Compliance–Reactance Framework for Evaluating Human-Robot Interaction Frontiers in Robotics and AI robotics human-robot interaction compliance reactance trust |
| title | A Compliance–Reactance Framework for Evaluating Human-Robot Interaction |
| title_full | A Compliance–Reactance Framework for Evaluating Human-Robot Interaction |
| title_fullStr | A Compliance–Reactance Framework for Evaluating Human-Robot Interaction |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Compliance–Reactance Framework for Evaluating Human-Robot Interaction |
| title_short | A Compliance–Reactance Framework for Evaluating Human-Robot Interaction |
| title_sort | compliance reactance framework for evaluating human robot interaction |
| topic | robotics human-robot interaction compliance reactance trust |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2022.733504/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT annikaboos acompliancereactanceframeworkforevaluatinghumanrobotinteraction AT oliviaherzog acompliancereactanceframeworkforevaluatinghumanrobotinteraction AT jakobreinhardt acompliancereactanceframeworkforevaluatinghumanrobotinteraction AT klausbengler acompliancereactanceframeworkforevaluatinghumanrobotinteraction AT markuszimmermann acompliancereactanceframeworkforevaluatinghumanrobotinteraction AT annikaboos compliancereactanceframeworkforevaluatinghumanrobotinteraction AT oliviaherzog compliancereactanceframeworkforevaluatinghumanrobotinteraction AT jakobreinhardt compliancereactanceframeworkforevaluatinghumanrobotinteraction AT klausbengler compliancereactanceframeworkforevaluatinghumanrobotinteraction AT markuszimmermann compliancereactanceframeworkforevaluatinghumanrobotinteraction |