Robot design is a critical component of human-robot interaction. A robot’s appearance shapes people’s expectations of that robot, which in turn affect human-robot interaction. This paper reports on an exploratory analysis of 155 drawings of robots that were collected across three studies. The purpose was to gain a better understanding of people’s a priori expectations about the appearance of robots across a variety of robot types (household, military, humanoid, generic, and AI). The findings suggest that people’s visualizations of robots have common features that can be grouped into five broad components. People seem to distinguish between human-like and machine-like robots, with a default visualization of robots having a human-like appearance. In addition, expectations about robot appearance may be dependent on application domain.
BhattacherjeeA. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25, 351-370.
3.
GraafM. M. A. deBen AllouchS. (2015). The evaluation of different roles for domestic social robots. Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 676-681.
4.
GraafM. M. A. deBen AllouchS.DijkJ. A. G. M. van (2017). Why do they refuse to use my robot?: Reasons for non-use derived from a long-term home study. Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Vienna, Austria, March 6-9.
5.
EzerN. (2008). Is a robot an appliance, teammate, or friend? Age-related differences in expectations of and attitudes towards personal home- based robots (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology). Retrieved from ProQuest.
6.
GoetzJ.KieslerS.PowersA. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 55-60.
7.
HegelF.KrachS.KircherT.WredeB.SagererG. (2008). Understanding social robots: A user study on anthropomorphism. Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 574-579.
8.
KomatsuT.KurosawaR.YamadaS. (2012). How does the difference between users’ expectations and perceptions about a robotic agent affect their behavior?International Journal of Social Robotics, 4, 109-116.
9.
LeeK.ParkN.SongH. (2005). Can a robot be perceived as a developing creature?: Effects of a robot’s long-term cognitive developments on its social presence and people’s social responses toward it. Human Communication Research, 31, 538-563.
10.
LohseM. (2011). Bridging the gap between users’ expectations and system evaluations. Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 485-490.
11.
OliverR. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 460-469.
RızvanoğluK.ÖztürkÖ.AdıyamanÖ. (2014). The impact of human likeness on the older adults’ perceptions and preferences of humanoid robot appearance. Proceedings of the International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability, 164-172.
14.
SchaeferK. E.SandersT. L.YordonR. E.BillingsD. R.HancockP. A. (2012). Classification of robot form: Predicting perceived trustworthiness. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 56, 1548-1552.
15.
SimsV. K.ChinM. G.SushilD. J.BarberD. J.BallionT.ClarkB. R.… FinkelsteinN. (2005). Anthropomorphism of robotic forms: A response to affordances?. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49, 602-605.
16.
WoodsS.DautenhahnK.SchulzJ. (2004). The design space of robots: Investigating children’s views. Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 47-52.
