CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploration of Relational Factors and the Likelihood of a Sexual Robotic Experience

Richards, Riley, Coss, Chelsea, Quinn, Jace·2017·Lecture Notes in Computer Science
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57738-8_9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-57738-8_9

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Breazeal, C.: Designing sociable machines. In: Dautenhahn, K., Bond, A., Cañamero, L., Edmonds, B. (eds.) Socially Intelligent Agents: Creating Relationships with Computers and Robots, pp. 149–156. Springer, US (2002) · DOI · Paper page
  2. Cooney, M.D., Nishio, S., Ishiguro, H.: Designing robots for well-being: Theoretical background and visual scenes of affectionate play with a small humanoid robot. Lovotics 1(1), 1–9 (2015)
  3. Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L., Werry, I.: What is a robot companion-friend, assistant or butler? Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1192–1197 (2005). doi: 10.1109/IROS.2005.1545189 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Descutner, C.J., Thelen, M.H.: Development and validation of a fear-of-intimacy scale. Psychol. Assess. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 3(2), 218–225 (1991)
  5. Dillman, D.A.: Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, vol. 2. Wiley, New York (2000)
  6. Fernaeus, Y., Håkansson, M., Jacobsson, M., Ljungblad, S.: How do you play with a robotic toy animal?: A long-term study of pleo. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on interaction Design and Children, pp. 39–48 (2010). doi: 10.1145/1810543.1810549 · DOI
  7. Fogg, B.J., Nass, C.: Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 46, 551–561 (1997). doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1996.0104 · DOI
  8. Forlizzi, J., DiSalvo, C.: Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 258–265 (2006). doi: 10.1145/1121241.1121286 · DOI
  9. Gaither, G.A., Sellbom, M.: The sexual sensation seeking scale: reliablity and validity within a heterosexual college student sample. J. Pers. Assess. 81(2), 157–167 (2003). doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA8102_07 · DOI
  10. Knafo, D., Jaffe, Y.: Sexual fantasizing in males and females. J. Res. Pers. 18(4), 451–462 (1984) · DOI
  11. Lawrence, K., Byers, E.S.: Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships 2(2), 267–285 (1995) · DOI
  12. Lee, E. J., Nass, C., Brave, S.: Can computer-generated speech have gender?: An experimental test of gender stereotypes. In: Computer-Human Interaction (CHI) Conference, The Hague, Amsterdam (2000) · DOI
  13. Levy, D.: Love and Sex with Robots. HarperCollins Publishers, New York (2009)
  14. Lin, P., Abney, K., Bekey, G.A.: Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics. MIT press, Cambridge (2011)
  15. McGahuey, C.A., Gelenberg, A.J., Laukes, C.A., Moreno, F.A., Delgado, P.L., McKnight, K.M., Manber, R.: The Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (ASEX): reliability and validity. J. Sex Marital Ther. 26(1), 25–40 (2000). doi: 10.1080/009262300278623 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T.: Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI & Soc. 20(2), 138–150 (2006). doi: 10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7 · DOI
  17. Nomura, S., Tek, K., Samani, H., Godage, I., Narangoda, M., Cheok, A.: Fesibility of social interfaces based on tactile senses for caring communication. In: The 8th International Workshop on Social Intelligence Design – SID 2009 (2009)
  18. Orbuch, T., Harvey, J.H.: Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of the sexuality in close relationships. In: McKinney, K., Sprecher, S. (eds.) Sexuality in Close Relationships, pp. 9–24. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1991)
  19. Samani, H.A.: Lovotics: love + robotics, sentimental robot with affective artificial intelligence (Doctoral dissertation). National University of Singapore (2011)
  20. Snell, J.C.: Impacts of robotic sex. The Futurist 31(4), 32 (1997)
  21. Stoll, B., Edwards, C., Edwards, A.: Why aren’t you a sassy little thing: the effects of robot-enacted guilt trips on credibility and consensus in a negotiation. Communication Studies, pp. 1–18 (2016). doi: 10.1080/10510974.2016.1215339 · DOI
  22. Young, J.E., Hawkins, R., Sharlin, E., Igarashi, T.: Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int. J. Soc. Robot 1(1), 95–108 (2009) · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Richards, R., Coss, C., & Quinn, J.
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2017
Pages
97-103
ISSN
  • 0302-9743
  • 1611-3349
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-57738-8_9
Cited by
14
References
1
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review