Smart Wonder: Cute, Helpful, Secure Domestic Social Robots
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Citation: Dereshev, Dmitry (2018) Smart Wonder: Cute, Helpful, Secure Domestic Social Robots. Doctoral thesis, Northumbria University. This version was downloaded from Northumbria Research Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/39773/ Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. Single copies of full items can be reproduced, displayed or performed, and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, title and full bibliographic details are given, as well as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata page. The content must not be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any format or medium without formal permission of the copyright holder. The full policy is available online: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/policies.html SMART WONDER: CUTE, HELPFUL, SECURE DOMESTIC SOCIAL ROBOTS D. DERESHEV PhD 2018 SMART WONDER: CUTE, HELPFUL, SECURE DOMESTIC SOCIAL ROBOTS DMITRY DERESHEV A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Northumbria at Newcastle for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Research undertaken in the Faculty of Engineering and Environment, School of Computer and Information Sciences December 2018 Abstract Sci-fi authors and start-ups alike claim that socially enabled technologies like companion robots will become widespread. However, current attempts to push companion robots to the market often end in failure, with consumers finding little value in the products offered. Technology acceptance frameworks describe factors that influence robot acceptance. It is unclear how to design a companion robot based on them, however, as they were derived from much more primitive, asocial technology. Based on two frameworks of robot acceptance as a starting point, this thesis highlights the value socially enabled technologies could bring as conveyed by the views and experiences of three user groups: the potential users of companion robots being exposed to adverts; the people who lived with smart speakers – a successful socially enabled technology with a dedicated embodiment; and the people who lived with companion robots long-term. By discussing both the frameworks of acceptance, and how real people used and anticipated real socially enabled technologies, this thesis draws broad considerations for companion robot designers concerning form factor, (non-)acceptance over time, robot’s personality, trust, and human-robot relationships. The implication is for the valuable traits to be replicated in the future iterations of companion robots. Findings include the tension between familiarity and strangeness of robotic form factors and faces; the specifics of how socially enabled technologies fit and do not fit within existing frameworks of acceptance; the need for both authenticity and pro-activity in companion robot’s personality; the differences between views and actions on security and trust towards autonomous devices in the domestic environment; and the construction of human-machine relationships between people and socially enabled technologies. These findings highlight the need to extend existing frameworks of robot acceptance to include unique factors pertaining to socially enabled technologies. They also highlight the need to highlight the value of companion robots, dismissing the assumption of automatic robot acceptance by people. i Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. i List of Tables & Figures ................................................................................................................. vi Acknowledgement........................................................................................................................... ix Author’s Declaration ........................................................................................................................ x Published work ................................................................................................................................ xi Chapter 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Companion Robots: From Fiction to Reality ..................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Portrayals of Companion Robots in Human Homes ................................................. 1 1.1.2 Existing Companion Robots ......................................................................................... 5 1.2 Qualitative Approach to Extracting Value of Companion Robots from Human Experiences .................................................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Central Ideas and Contributions ......................................................................................... 9 1.4 Thesis Overview .................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2 – Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Highlights of Social & Domestic Robot Technologies ................................................... 12 2.1.1 Domestic Robots: Timeline, Purpose & Capabilities .............................................. 12 2.1.2 Social Robots: Timeline, Purpose & Capabilities .................................................... 15 2.2 Frameworks of Acceptance ............................................................................................... 21 2.2.1 General Technology Acceptance Models ................................................................ 21 2.2.2 De Graaf’s Framework ................................................................................................ 22 2.2.3 De Graaf’s Design Advice........................................................................................... 25 2.2.4 Domestic Robot Ecology (DRE) Framework ........................................................... 26 2.2.5 DRE Design Advice ..................................................................................................... 27 2.2.6 Fragments of Acceptance ........................................................................................... 28 2.2.5 Summary of Advice from Frameworks of Acceptance ........................................... 30 2.3 Companion Robots According to Research .................................................................... 32 2.3.1 Robot’s Face ................................................................................................................. 32 2.3.2 Robot’s Form ................................................................................................................ 35 2.3.3 Functionality .................................................................................................................. 39 2.3.4 Trusting Robots ............................................................................................................ 41 2.3.5 Companion Robot Security......................................................................................... 43 2.3.6 Social Features ............................................................................................................ 45 2.4 Studies of Populations ........................................................................................................ 52 2.5 Limitations of Existing Research ....................................................................................... 56 ii 2.5.1 Limitations of (Representations of) Robots .............................................................. 56 2.5.2 Limitations of the Environments in the Studies ........................................................ 58 2.5.3 Limitations of Interactions in the Studies .................................................................. 58 2.6 Summary of the Temporal & Persistent Factors Affecting Companion Robot Acceptance .................................................................................................................................. 59 2.6 Problem Statement .............................................................................................................. 60 Chapter 3 – Methodology .............................................................................................................. 62 3.1 Classical Ontologies & Philosophies of Process ............................................................ 62 3.2 Ontology & Epistemology of Instrumentalism ................................................................. 65 3.2.1 Advantages of the Instrumental Approach ............................................................... 67 3.2.2 Philosophical Objections & Responses .................................................................... 68 3.3 Methodological Approaches ............................................................................................... 69 3.3.1 The Kinds & Limits of Data ......................................................................................... 69 3.3.2 The Domestic Setting & Its Limits .............................................................................