Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Keywords
- Buttocks (1)
- Empathy (1)
- Experimental design (1)
- Human– robot intimate relationships (1)
- Human– robot tactile interaction (1)
- Mimicry (1)
- Non-verbal emotion (1)
- Robot Pepper (1)
- Skin conductance (1)
- humanoid (1)
Institute
- Department Psychologie (3) (remove)
This study investigated how touching and being touched by a humanoid robot affects human physiology, impressions of the interaction, and attitudes towards humanoid robots. 21 healthy adult participants completed a 3 (touch style: touching, being touched, pointing) x 2 (body part: hand vs buttock) within-subject design using a Pepper robot. Skin conductance response (SCR) was measured during each interaction. Perceived impressions of the interaction (i.e., friendliness, comfort, arousal) were measured per questionnaire after each interaction. Participants' demographics and their attitude towards robots were also considered. We found shorter SCR rise times in the being touched compared to the touching condition, possibly reflecting psychological alertness to the unpredictability of robot-initiated contacts. The hand condition had shorter rise times than the buttock condition. Most participants evaluated the hand condition as most friendly and comfortable and the robot-initiated interactions as most arousing. Interacting with Pepper improved attitudes towards robots. Our findings require future studies with larger samples and improved procedures. They have implications for robot design in all domains involving tactile interactions, such as caring and intimacy.
Mimicking non-verbal emotional expressions and empathy development in simulated consultations
(2018)
Objective: To explore the feasibility of applying an experimental design to study the relationship between non-verbal emotions and empathy development in simulated consultations.
Method: In video-recorded simulated consultations, twenty clinicians were randomly allocated to either an experimental group (instructed to mimic non-verbal emotions of a simulated patient, SP) or a control group (no such instruction). Baseline empathy scores were obtained before consultation, relational empathy was rated by SP after consultation. Multilevel logistic regression modelled the probability of mimicry occurrence, controlling for baseline empathy and clinical experience. ANCOVA compared group differences on relational empathy and consultation smoothness.
Results: Instructed mimicry lasted longer than spontaneous mimicry. Mimicry was marginally related to improved relational empathy. SP felt being treated more like a whole person during consultations with spontaneous mimicry. Clinicians who displayed spontaneous mimicry felt consultations went more smoothly.
Conclusion: The experimental approach improved our understanding of how non-verbal emotional mimicry contributed to relational empathy development during consultations. Further work should ascertain the potential of instructed mimicry to enhance empathy development.
Practice implications: Understanding how non-verbal emotional mimicry impacts on patients’ perceived clinician empathy during consultations may inform training and intervention programme development.