56 Just ordinAry robots
response is high, this also motivates researchers to proceed in order
to reach a more ecient and eective interaction (Breazeal, 2003;
Heerink, Kröse, Wielinga, & Evers, 2009). Not only is a lot of knowl-
edge missing about the mechanisms that encourage communication
between humans and robots, but knowledge about how behavior occurs
between humans and robots, and even how the interaction between
people actually works, is also absent. is knowledge is critical to the
design of robots, because the success of the social robot depends on
successful interaction (Breazeal etal., 2008; Dautenhahn, 1995). is
research is still in its infancy and is being studied in the discipline of
human–robot interaction. In Section 2.3.2, we will briey describe
the state-of-the-art human–robot interaction and the focal points of
this discipline today.
Since users are strongly inclined toward anthropomorphism, these
robots quickly generate feelings (Duy, 2003). e mechanization
(rationalization) of the interaction with a human being therefore
evokes ethical questions with respect to dehumanization. is issue
will be detailed in Section 2.3.3.
2.3.1 e Robot Body
In a study by Ray, Mondada, and Siegwart (2008), it was found that
people do not like the idea that a household robot looks like a human
being, and that people prefer the robot to look like a small machine.
is machine should also match the interior of the house, so that
householders feel more comfortable adopting it (Sung, Christensen,
& Grinter, 2008). For companion robots, however, the humanoid
shape enables the robot to perform its task, that is, mainly the inter-
action with a human being, in a better way. If the companion robot
has, for example, a face, so that it is able to use his eyes, mouth, ears,
and eyebrows to express all kinds of emotions, it will be capable of
intuitive communications with human beings. Companion robots
have, however, one remarkable thing in common and that is they
do not resemble humans in appearance in the slightest. ey usu-
ally express childish or abstract life forms (see Boxes 2.1 and 2.2).
For most designers of companion robots, the key is about some kind
of communication via verbal andnonverbal means, but the appear-
ance of the robot matters less. e nonverbalmeans,however, can