The Impact of Robot Role and Personality on Participants’ Perception of the Robot in a Human–Robot Teaching Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A better understanding of how humans perceive robot personality variables could enable the design of more socially acceptable robots. In this exploratory study, we examined whether manipulations of an iCub robot’s voice and movements affected human participants’ perceptions of the robot’s personality. We programmed the robot to behave in different ways during a teaching scenario in which it played either a teaching, learning, or collaborative role, shown in recorded videos of human–robot interactions. A total of 240 participants in an Amazon Mechanical Turk study watched these videos and completed a series of questionnaires assessing their perceptions of the robot. Participants perceived the iCub as more extroverted when it spoke faster, with a higher pitch, and performed larger-amplitude movements. It was determined that participants’ personality dimensions were more influential in their perceptions of the robot’s TIPI and RoSAS personality dimensions than the robot’s social role and personality manipulations. Participants’ self-rated extroversion, emotional stability, and conscientiousness repeatedly appeared as significant factors affecting their perceptions of the robot’s personality. Interestingly, we observed strong perceiver effects, whereby participants’ perceptions of the robot’s personality traits were correlated with their own self-rated personality traits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".