Robotic Pets in the Lives of Preschool Children
Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children Peter H. Kahn, Jr., Batya Friedman, Deanne R. Pérez-Granados and Nathan G. Freier University of Washington / Stanford University / University of Washington This study examined preschool children’s reasoning about and behavioral interactions with one of the most advanced robotic pets currently on the retail market, Sony’s robotic dog AIBO. Eighty children, equally divided between two age groups, 34–50 months and 58–74 months, participated in individual sessions with two artifacts: AIBO and a stuffed dog. Evaluation and justification results showed similarities in children’s reasoning across artifacts. In contrast, children engaged more often in apprehensive behavior and attempts at reciprocity with AIBO, and more often mistreated the stuffed dog and endowed it with animation. Discussion focuses on how robotic pets, as representative of an emerging technological genre, may be (a) blurring foundational ontological categories, and (b) impacting children’s social and moral development. Keywords: AIBO, children, human–computer interaction, human–robot interaction, moral development, social development, Value Sensitive Design Animals have long been an important part of children’s lives, offering comfort and companionship, and promoting the development of moral reciprocity and responsibility (Beck & Katcher, 1996; Kahn, 1999; Melson, 2001). Yet in recent years there has been a movement to create robotic pets that mimic aspects of their biological counterparts. In turn, researchers have begun to ask important questions. Can robotic pets, compared to biological pets, provide children with similar developmental outcomes (Druin & Hendler, 2000; Pérez-Granados, 2002; Turkle, 2000)? How do children conceive of this genre of robots? It is a genre that some researchers have begun to refer to as “social robots” (Bartneck & Forlizzi, 2004; Breazeal, 2003): robots that, to varying degrees, have some constellation of being personified, embodied, adaptive, and autonomous; and Interaction Studies 7:3 (2006), 405–436.
[Show full text]