CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 119Social Robot Interaction and HRIAI in Service InteractionsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Building Long-Term Human–Robot Relationships: Examining Disclosure, Perception and Well-Being Across Time

Open access
Laban, Guy, Kappas, Arvid, Morrison, Val, Cross, Emily S.·2024·International Journal of Social Robotics
DOI 10.1007/s12369-023-01076-z

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

While interactions with social robots are novel and exciting for many people, one concern is the extent to which people’s behavioural and emotional engagement might be sustained across time, since during initial interactions with a robot, its novelty is especially salient. This challenge is particularly noteworthy when considering interactions designed to support people’s well-being, with limited evidence (or empirical exploration) of social robots’ capacity to support people’s emotional health over time. Accordingly, our aim here was to examine how long-term repeated interactions with a social robot affect people’s self-disclosure behaviour toward the robot, their perceptions of the robot, and how such sustained interactions influence factors related to well-being. We conducted a mediated long-term online experiment with participants conversing with the social robot Pepper 10 times over 5 weeks. We found that people self-disclose increasingly more to a social robot over time, and report the robot to be more social and competent over time. Participants’ moods also improved after talking to the robot, and across sessions, they found the robot’s responses increasingly comforting as well as reported feeling less lonely. Finally, our results emphasize that when the discussion frame was supposedly more emotional (in this case, framing questions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic), participants reported feeling lonelier and more stressed. These results set the stage for situating social robots as conversational partners and provide crucial evidence for their potential inclusion in interventions supporting people’s emotional health through encouraging self-disclosure.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12369-023-01076-z

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • When AI agents share emotionally relevant content, users are more likely to feel accepted, comforted, and willing to open up themselves.

    “When AI agents share emotionally relevant content, users are more likely to feel accepted, comforted, and willing to open up themselves [29, 59].”

    From Emotional Coregulation in Close Relationships with AI Agents: A Survey of ChatGPT and Replika Users (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    Section 5.5 reports that framing the robot’s discussion around an emotional topic did not affect participants’ self-disclosure or their perception of the robot; it instead found higher loneliness and stress in that condition. Section 5.4 also says the discussion frame had no meaningful effect on how comforting participants found Pepper’s responses. The paper does not report that the robot’s emotional content made users feel more accepted, comforted, or willing to open up. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 110

  1. Henschel A, Laban G, Cross ES (2021) What makes a robot social? A Review of social robots from science fiction to a home or hospital near you. Curr Robot Rep 2:9-19. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s43154-020-00035-0 · DOI
  2. Hortensius R, Hekele F, Cross ES (2018) The perception of emo- tion in artificial agents. IEEE Trans Cognit Dev Syst 10(4):852- 864. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2018.2826921 · DOI
  3. Smedegaard CV (2019) Reframing the role of novelty within social HRI: from noise to information. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. HRI'19. IEEE Press, pp 411-420. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI. 2019.8673219 · DOI
  4. Smedegaard CV (2022) Novelty knows no boundaries: why a proper investigation of novelty effects within SHRI should begin by addressing the scientific plurality of the field. Front Robot AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/FROBT.2022.741478 · DOI
  5. Breazeal C (2003) Toward sociable robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):167-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373- 1 · DOI
  6. Robinson NL, Cottier TV, Kavanagh DJ (2019) Psychosocial health interventions by social robots: systematic review of ran- domized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res 21(5):1-20. https:// doi.org/10.2196/13203 · DOI
  7. Cross ES, Ramsey R (2021) Mind meets machine: towards a cog- nitive science of human-machine interactions. Trends Cogn Sci 25(3):200-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2020.11.009 · DOI
  8. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1426(1):93-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas. 13727 · DOI
  9. Cross ES, Ramsey R, Liepelt R, Prinz W, Hamilton AFdC (2016) The shaping of social perception by stimulus and knowledge cues to human animacy. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 371(1686):20150075. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0075 · DOI
  10. Laban G (2022) Social robots as communication partners to support emotional health and well-being. In: 2022 10th International conference on affective computing and intelli- gent interaction workshops and demos (ACIIW), pp. 1-5. IEEE, Nara, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIIW57231.2022. 10086018. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10086018/ · DOI
  11. Jourard SM, Lasakow P (1958) Some factors in self-disclosure. Psychol Sci Public Interest 56(1):91-98. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0043357 · DOI
  12. Pearce WB, Sharp SM (1973) Self-disclosing communication. J Commun 23(4):409-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466. 1973.tb00958.x · DOI
  13. Kennedy-Moore E, Watson JC (2001) How and when does emo- tional expression help? Rev Gen Psychol 5(3):187-212. https:// doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.3.187 · DOI
  14. Sloan DM (2010) Self-disclosure and psychological well-being. Social psychological foundations of clinical psychology, pp. 212- 225. The Guilford Press, New York
  15. Derlega VJ, Winstead BA, Lewis RJ, Maddux J (1993) Clients' responses to dissatisfaction in psychotherapy: a test of Rusbult's exit-voice-loyalty-neglect model. J Soc Clin Psychol 12(3):307- 318. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1993.12.3.307 · DOI
  16. Kappas A, Stower R, Vanman EJ (2020) Communicating with robots what we do wrong and what we do right in artificial social intelligence, and what we need to do better. In: Sternberg RJ, Kostic A (eds) Communication Nonverbal Intelligence Social. Springer, Cham, pp 233-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- 34964-6 · DOI
  17. Van Giesen RI, Fischer ARH, Van Dijk H, Van Trijp HCM (2015) Affect and cognition in attitude formation toward familiar and unfamiliar attitude objects. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/ JOURNAL.PONE.0141790 · DOI
  18. Issa T, Isaias P (2015) Usability and Human Computer Interac- tion (HCI). Sustain Design. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471- 6753-2 · DOI
  19. Polakow T, Laban G, Teodorescu A, Busemeyer JR, Gordon G (2022) Social robot advisors: effects of robot judgmental fallacies and context. Intel Serv Robot 15(5):593-609. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11370-022-00438-2 · DOI
  20. Sabanovic S, Michalowski MP, Simmons R (2006) Robots in the wild: observing human-robot social interaction outside the lab. Int Workshop Adv Motion Control AMC 2006:576-581. https:// doi.org/10.1109/AMC.2006.1631758 · DOI
  21. Sung J, Christensen HI, Grinter RE (2009) Robots in the wild: understanding long-term use. In: 2009 4th ACM/IEEE interna- tional conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pp. 45-52. ACM, New York
  22. Stower R, Kappas A (2020) Oh no, my instructions were wrong!" An exploratory pilot towards children's trust in social robots. In: 2020 29th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp. 641-646. https://doi. org/10.1109/RO-MAN47096.2020.9223495 · DOI
  23. Holthaus P, Wachsmuth S (2021) It was a pleasure meeting you: towards a holistic model of human-robot encounters. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00759-9 · DOI
  24. Céspedes N, Irfan B, Senft E, Cifuentes CA, Gutierrez LF, Rincon- Roncancio M, Belpaeme T, Múnera M (2021) A socially assistive robot for long-term cardiac rehabilitation in the real world. Front Neurorobot 15:21. https://doi.org/10.3389/FNBOT.2021.633248 · DOI
  25. De Graaf MMA, Allouch SB, van Dijk JAGM (2016) Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes. Interact Stud 17(3):462- 491
  26. Feingold Polak R, Tzedek SL (2020) Social robot for reha- bilitation: expert clinicians and post-stroke patients' evaluation following a long-term intervention. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. HRI'20, pp. 151-160. Association for Computing Machinery, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374797 · DOI
  27. Levinson L, Gvirsman O, Gorodesky IM, Perez A, Gonen E, Gor- don G (2020) Learning in summer camp with social robots: a morphological study. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12369-020-00689-y · DOI
  28. Jeong S, Aymerich-Franch L, Arias K, Alghowinem S, Lapedriza A, Picard R, Park HW, Breazeal C (2022) Deploying a robotic positive psychology coach to improve college students' psycho- logical well-being. User Model User-Adap Inter. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11257-022-09337-8 · DOI
  29. Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2004) Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Human- Comput Interact 19(1):61-84
  30. Michaelis JE, Mutlu B (2017) Someone to read with: design of and experiences with an in-home learning companion robot for reading. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453 · DOI
  31. Michaelis JE, Mutlu B (2019) Supporting interest in science learning with a social robot. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM international conference on interaction design and children. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927 · DOI
  32. Woo H, LeTendre GK, Pham-Shouse T, Xiong Y (2021) The use of social robots in classrooms: a review of field-based studies. Educ Res Rev 33:100388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021. 100388 · DOI
  33. Robinson NL, Ward B, Kavanagh DJ (2021) A robot-delivered program for low-intensity problem-solving therapy for students in higher education. In: 2021 30th IEEE international confer- ence on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN 2021, pp. 945-950. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN50785. 2021.9515532 · DOI
  34. Robinson NL, Connolly J, Hides L, Kavanagh DJ (2020) A social robot to deliver an 8-week intervention for diabetes management: initial test of feasibility in a hospital clinic. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics) 12483 LNAI, pp 628-639. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62056-1_ · DOI
  35. Robinson NL, Connolly J, Hides L, Kavanagh DJ (2020) Social robots as treatment agents: pilot randomized controlled trial to deliver a behavior change intervention. Internet Interv 21:100320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2020.100320 · DOI
  36. Nomura T, Kanda T, Yamada S, Suzuki T (2021) The effects of assistive walking robots for health care support on older persons: a preliminary field experiment in an elder care facility. Intell Serv Robot 14(1):25-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11370-020-00345- 4 · DOI
  37. Bodala IP, Churamani N, Gunes H (2021) Teleoperated robot coaching for mindfulness training: a longitudinal study. In: 2021 30th IEEE international conference on robot and human inter- active communication, RO-MAN 2021, pp 939-944. https://doi. org/10.1109/RO-MAN50785.2021.9515371 · DOI
  38. Céspedes N, Raigoso D, Múnera M, Cifuentes CA (2021) Long-term social human-robot interaction for neurorehabilitation: robots as a tool to support gait therapy in the pandemic. Front Neu- rorobot 15:10. https://doi.org/10.3389/FNBOT.2021.612034 · DOI
  39. Koren Y, Feingold Polak R, Levy-Tzedek S (2022) Extended interviews with stroke patients over a long-term rehabilita- tion using human-robot or human-computer interactions. Int J Soc Robot 14(8):1893-1911. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369- 022-00909-7/FIGURES/6 · DOI
  40. Feingold-Polak R, Barzel O, Levy-Tzedek S (2021) A robot goes to rehab: a novel gamified system for long-term stroke rehabili- tation using a socially assistive robot-methodology and usability testing. J Neuroeng Rehabil 18(1):122. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12984-021-00915-2 · DOI
  41. Afyouni A, Ocnarescu I, Cossin I, Kamoun E, Mazel A, Fattal C (2022) Living one week with an autonomous Pepper in a reha- bilitation center: lessons from the field. In: RO-MAN 2022-31st IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication: social, asocial, and antisocial robots, pp 554- 559. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN53752.2022.9900640 · DOI
  42. Croes EAJ, Antheunis ML (2021) 36 Questions to loving a chat- bot: are people willing to self-disclose to a chatbot? In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), vol. 12604 LNCS, pp 81-95. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-68288-0 · DOI
  43. Hortensius R, Chaudhury B, Hoffmann M, Cross E (2022) Track- ing human interactions with a commercially-available robot over multiple days. Open Res Europe 2:97. https://doi.org/10.12688/ OPENRESEUROPE.14824.1 · DOI
  44. Cross ES, Riddoch KA, Pratts J, Titone S, Chaudhury B, Hort- ensius R (2019) A neurocognitive investigation of the impact of socializing with a robot on empathy for pain. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 374(1771):20180034. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018. 0034 · DOI
  45. Scoglio AAJ, Reilly ED, Gorman JA, Drebing CE (2019) Use of social robots in mental health and well-being research: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 21(7):13322. https://doi.org/10.2196/ 13322 · DOI
  46. Laban G, Ben-Zion Z, Cross ES (2022) Social robots for support- ing post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis and treatment. Front Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYT.2021.752874 · DOI
  47. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Yamada S (2020) Do people with social anxiety feel anxious about interacting with a robot? AI Soc 35(2):381-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00889-9 · DOI
  48. Rasouli S, Gupta G, Nilsen E, Dautenhahn K (2022) Potential applications of social robots in robot-assisted interventions for social anxiety. Int J Soc Robot 14(5):1-32. https://doi.org/10. 1007/S12369-021-00851-0 · DOI
  49. Axelsson M, Churamani N, Caldir A, Gunes H (2022) Participant perceptions of a robotic coach conducting positive psychology exercises: a systematic analysis. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv. 2209.03827 · DOI
  50. Robinson NL, Kavanagh DJ (2021) A social robot to deliver a psy- chotherapeutic treatment: qualitative responses by participants in a randomized controlled trial and future design recommendations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 155:102700. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. IJHCS.2021.102700 · DOI
  51. Scassellati B, Vázquez M (2020) The potential of socially assistive robots during infectious disease outbreaks. Sci Robot. https://doi. org/10.1126/scirobotics.abc9014 · DOI
  52. Yang G-Z, Nelson BJ, Murphy RR, Choset H, Christensen H, Collins SH, Dario P, Goldberg K, Ikuta K, Jacobstein N, Kragic D, Taylor RH, McNutt M (2020) Combating COVID-19-The role of robotics in managing public health and infectious diseases. Sci Robot 5(40):5589. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIROBOTICS. ABB5589 · DOI
  53. Isabet B, Pino M, Lewis M, Benveniste S, Rigaud A-S (2021) Social telepresence robots: a narrative review of experiments involving older adults before and during the COVID-19 pan- demic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ IJERPH18073597 · DOI
  54. Choi M, Choung H (2021) Mediated communication mat- ters during the COVID-19 pandemic: the use of interper- sonal and masspersonal media and psychological well-being. J Soc Pers Relat 38(8):2397-2418. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 02654075211029378 · DOI
  55. Shiomi M, Nakata A, Kanbara M, Hagita N (2020) Robot reciprocation of hugs increases both interacting times and self- disclosures. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020- 00644-x · DOI
  56. Duan Y, Yoon M, Liang Z, Hoorn JF (2021) Self-disclosure to a robot: only for those who suffer the most. Robotics 10(3):98. https://doi.org/10.3390/ROBOTICS10030098 · DOI
  57. Hoffman G, Birnbaum GE, Vanunu K, Sass O, Reis HT (2014) Robot responsiveness to human disclosure affects social impres- sion and appeal. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE inter- national conference on human-robot interaction. HRI-14. Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 1-8. https://doi. org/10.1145/2559636.2559660 · DOI
  58. Nakamura Y, Umemuro H (2022) Effect of robot's listening atti- tude change on self-disclosure of the elderly. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00934-6 · DOI
  59. De Groot J-J, Barakova E, Lourens T, van Wingerden E, Sterken- burg P (2019) Game-based human-robot interaction promotes self-disclosure in people with visual impairments and intellectual disabilities BT-understanding the brain function and emotions. In: Vicente JM, Álvarez-Sánchez JR, de la Paz López F, Toledo Moreo J, Adeli H (eds) Ferrández. Springer, Cham, pp 262-272
  60. van Wingerden E, Barakova E, Lourens T, Sterkenburg PS (2020) Robot-mediated therapy to reduce worrying in persons with visual and intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intell Disabil. https://doi. org/10.1111/jar.12801 · DOI
  61. Pennebaker JW, Beall SK (1986) Confronting a traumatic event: toward an understanding of inhibition and disease. J Abnorm Psychol 95(3):274-281. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.95. 3.274 · DOI
  62. Luo RL, Zhang TXY, Chen DH-C, Hoorn JF, Huang IS (2022) Social robots outdo the not-so-social media for self-disclosure: safe machines preferred to unsafe humans? Robotics 11(5):92. https://doi.org/10.3390/ROBOTICS11050092 · DOI
  63. Tamir DI, Mitchell JP (2012) Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(21):8038- 8043. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1202129109 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Laban G, Cross ES (2023) Sharing with robots: why do we do it and how does it make us feel? PsyArxiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/ OSF.IO/2AZPQ · DOI
  65. Nelson LD, Simmons JP, Simonsohn U (2012) Let's publish fewer papers. Psychol Inq 23(3):291-293. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1047840X.2012.705245 · DOI
  66. Laban G, Kappas A, Morrison V, Cross ES (2021) Socially assis- tive robots in prolonged interactions for measuring expression in natural settings. Technical report. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF. IO/R5XGA. https://osf.io/r5xga · DOI
  67. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, du Sert NP, Simonsohn U, Wagenmakers E-J, Ware JJ, Ioannidis JPA (2017) A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav 1(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Laban G, Kappas A, Morrison V, Cross ES (2020) OSF repository: socially assistive robots in prolonged interactions for measur- ing expression in natural settings. OSF. https://doi.org/10.17605/ OSF.IO/M74CB. https://osf.io/m74cb/ · DOI
  69. Riddoch KA, Cross ES (2021) "Hit the robot on the head with this mallet" -making a case for including more open questions in HRI research. Front Robot AI 8:2. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt. 2021.603510 · DOI
  70. Jourard SM (1971) Self-disclosure: an experimental analysis of the transparent self. Wiley, Oxford, p 248248
  71. Connell J, Brazier J, O'Cathain A, Lloyd-Jones M, Paisley S (2012) Quality of life of people with mental health problems: a synthesis of qualitative research. Health Qual Life Outcomes 10(1):138. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-138 · DOI
  72. Kreiner H, Levi-Belz Y (2019) Self-disclosure here and now: combining retrospective perceived assessment with dynamic behavioral measures. Front Psychol 10:558. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2019.00558 · DOI
  73. Levi-Belz Y, Kreiner H (2016) What you say and how you say it: analysis of speech content and speech fluency as predictors of judged self-disclosure. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 7(3):232-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616632575 · DOI
  74. Barak A, Gluck-Ofri O (2007) Degree and reciprocity of self- disclosure in online forums. Cyber Psychol Behav 10(3):407-417. https://doi.org/10.1089/CPB.2006.9938 · DOI
  75. Joinson AN (2001) Self-disclosure in computer-mediated com- munication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. Eur J Soc Psychol 31(2):177-192. https://doi.org/10.1002/EJSP.36 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Pedersen DM, Breglio VJ (1968) Personality correlates of actual self-disclosure. Psychol Rep 22(2):495-501. https://doi.org/10. 2466/PR0.1968.22.2.495 · DOI
  77. Jadoul Y, Thompson B, de Boer B (2018) Introducing parsel- mouth: a python interface to praat. J Phon 71:1-15. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.07.001 · DOI
  78. Birnbaum GE, Mizrahi M, Hoffman G, Reis HT, Finkel EJ, Sass O (2016) What robots can teach us about intimacy: the reassuring effects of robot responsiveness to human disclosure. Comput Hum Behav 63:416-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.064 104. · DOI · Paper page
  79. Demeure V, Niewiadomski R, Pelachaud C (2011) How is believability of a virtual agent related to warmth, competence, per- sonification, and embodiment? presence: teleoperators and virtual environments. Presence 20(5):431-448. https://doi.org/10.1162/ PRES_a_ 105. · DOI
  80. Berry DS, Hansen JS (2000) Personality, nonverbal behavior, and interaction quality in female dyads. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 26(3):278-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265002 106. · DOI
  81. Nahum M, Van Vleet TM, Sohal VS, Mirzabekov JJ, Rao VR, Wallace DL, Lee MB, Dawes H, Stark-Inbar A, Jordan JT, Bia- gianti B, Merzenich M, Chang EF (2017) Immediate mood scaler: tracking symptoms of depression and anxiety using a novel mobile mood scale. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 5(4):44. https://doi.org/10. 2196/mhealth.6544 107. · DOI
  82. Clark RA, Pierce AJ, Finn K, Hsu K, Toosley A, Williams L (1998) The impact of alternative approaches to comforting, closeness of relationship, and gender on multiple measures of effectiveness. Commun Stud 49(3):224-239. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10510979809368533 109. · DOI
  83. Hays RD, DiMatteo MR (1987) A short-form measure of loneliness. J Pers Assess 51(1):69-81. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327752jpa5101 110. · DOI
  84. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R (1983) A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 24(4):385-396. https://doi. org/10.2307/2136404 111. · DOI · Paper page
  85. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1-48. https:// doi.org/10.18637/JSS.V067.I01 112. · DOI · Paper page
  86. Stower R, Tatarian K, Rudaz D, Chamoux M, Chetouani M, Kap- pas A (2022) Does what users say match what they do? Comparing self-reported attitudes and behaviours towards a social robot. In: 2022 31st IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 1429-1434. https:// doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN53752.2022.9900782 114. · DOI
  87. Nielsen YA, Pfattheicher S, Keijsers M (2022) Prosocial behavior toward machines. Curr Opin Psychol 43:260-265. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.COPSYC.2021.08.004 116. Axelsson M, Bodala IP, Gunes H (2021) Participatory design of a robotic mental well-being coach. In: 2021 30th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive com- munication, RO-MAN 2021, pp 1081-1088. https://doi.org/10. 1109/RO-MAN50785.2021.9515356 117. · DOI
  88. Lampraki C, Hoffman A, Roquet A, Jopp DS (2022) Loneliness during COVID-19: development and influencing factors. PLoS ONE 17(3):0265900. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE. 0265900 119. · DOI · Paper page
  89. Pirhonen J, Tiilikainen E, Pekkarinen S, Lemivaara M, Melkas H (2020) Can robots tackle late-life loneliness? Scanning of future opportunities and challenges in assisted living facilities. Futures 124:102640. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURES.2020.102640 120. · DOI
  90. Ruggiero A, Mahr D, Odekerken-Schröder G, Spena TR, Mele C (2022) Companion robots for well-being: a review and relational framework. In: Davis M (ed) Research handbook on services man- agement. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 309-330 121.
  91. Odekerken-Schröder G, Mele C, Russo-Spena T, Mahr D, Rug- giero A (2020) Mitigating loneliness with companion robots in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: an integrative framework and research agenda. J Serv Manag 31(6):1149-1162. https://doi. org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0148/FULL/PDF 122. · DOI
  92. Spitale M, Gunes H (2022) Affective robotics for wellbeing: a scoping review. In: 2022 10th International conference on affec- tive computing and intelligent interaction workshops and demos (ACIIW), pp 1-8 . https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIIW57231.2022. 10085995 125. Bujarski SJ, Mischel E, Dutton C, Steele JS, Cisler J (2015) The elicitation and assessment of emotional responding. In: Sleep and affect: assessment, theory, and clinical implications, pp. 91-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417188-6.00005-0 126. · DOI
  93. Laban G, Morrison V, Kappas A, Cross ES (2022) Informal care- givers disclose increasingly more to a social robot over time. In: CHI conference on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts. CHI EA'22, pp 1-7. Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101. 3519666 127. · DOI
  94. Gunes H, Broz F, Crawford CS, der Pütten AR-v, Strait M, Riek L (2022) Reproducibility in human-robot interaction: furthering the science of HRI. Curr Robot Rep. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154- 022-00094-5 128. · DOI
  95. Henschel A, Hortensius R, Cross ES (2020) Social cognition in the age of human-robot interaction. Trends Neurosci 43(6):373-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2020.03.013 129. · DOI
  96. Powell H, Laban G, George J-N, Cross ES (2022) Is deep learning a valid approach for inferring subjective self-disclosure in human- robot interactions? In: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE inter- national conference on human-robot interaction. HRI'22. IEEE Press, Sapporo, pp 991-996. https://doi.org/10.5555/3523760. 3523921 130. Abbasi N, Spitale M, Anderson J, Ford T, Jones P, Gunes H (2022) Computational audio modelling for robot-assisted assessment of children's mental wellbeing. In: 14th International conference on social robotics. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.89924 131. · DOI
  97. Laban G, Kappas A, Morrison V, Cross ES (2023) Opening up to social robots: how emotions drive self-disclosure behavior. In: 2023 32nd IEEE International conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, Busan, pp 1697- 1704. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309551 132. Li J (2015) The benefit of being physically present: a survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. Int J Hum Comput Stud 77:23-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.01.001 133. · DOI · Paper page
  98. Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2007) Observing con- versational expressiveness of elderly users interacting with a robot and screen agent. In: 2007 IEEE 10th international conference on rehabilitation robotics, ICORR'07, pp 751-756. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ICORR.2007.4428509 134. · DOI · Paper page
  99. Kiesler S, Powers A, Fussell SR, Torrey C (2008) Anthropomor- phic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent. Soc Cogn 26(2):169-181. https://doi.org/10.1521/SOCO.2008.26.2.169 135. · DOI
  100. Honig S, Oron-Gilad T (2020) Comparing laboratory user studies and video-enhanced web surveys for eliciting user gestures in human-robot interactions. In: Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 248-250. https://doi. org/10.1145/3371382.3378325 136. · DOI
  101. Gittens CL, Garnes D (2022) Zenbo on zoom: evaluating the human-robot interaction user experience in a video conferencing session. Digest of technical papers-IEEE international confer- ence on consumer electronics, vol 2022-January. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ICCE53296.2022.9730259 137. · DOI
  102. Hoffman G, Zhao X (2020) A primer for conducting experiments in human-robot interaction. J Hum-Robot Interact. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3412374 138. · DOI
  103. Salkind NJ (2010) Within-subjects design. In: Encyclopedia of research design. SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10. 4135/9781412961288 139. · DOI · Paper page
  104. Charness G, Gneezy U, Kuhn MA (2012) Experimental methods: between-subject and within-subject design. J Econ Behav Org 81(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEBO.2011.08.009 140. Lepper HS (1998) Use of other-reports to validate subjective well- being measures. Soc Indic Res 44(3):367-379 141. · DOI · Paper page
  105. Pavot W, Diener E (1993) The affective and cognitive context of self-reported measures of subjective well-being. Soc Indic Res 28(1):1-20 142.
  106. Short JC, McKenny AF, Reid SW (2018) More than words? Computer-aided text analysis in organizational behavior and psychology research. Annu Rev Organ Psych Organ Behav 5:415- 435. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-032117- 104622 144. · DOI
  107. Bak JY, Lin CY, Oh A (2014) Self-disclosure topic model for classifying and analyzing Twitter conversations. In: EMNLP 2014-2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, proceedings of the conference. Association for Com- putational Linguistics (ACL), pp 1986-1996. https://doi.org/10. 3115/V1/D14-1213. https://aclanthology.org/D14-1213 145. · DOI
  108. Pluta M (2021) Online self-disclosure and social sharing of emo- tions of women with breast cancer using instagram-qualitative conventional content analysis. Chronic Illn 18(4):834-848. https://doi.org/10.1177/17423953211039778 146. · DOI
  109. Sermat V, Smyth M (1973) Content analysis of verbal communi- cation in the development of relationship: conditions influencing self-disclosure. J Pers Soc Psychol 26(3):332-346. https://doi. org/10.1037/H0034473 147. · DOI
  110. Chen L, Hu N, Shu C, Chen X (2019) Adult attachment and self-disclosure on social networking site: a content analysis of Sina Weibo. Person Individ Differ 138:96-105. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.PAID.2018.09.028 148. Law EL-C, Følstad A, Grudin J, Schuller B (2022) Conversational agent as trustworthy autonomous system (trust-CA) (Dagstuhl Seminar 21381). Dagstuhl Rep 11(8):76-114. https://doi.org/10. 4230/DagRep.11.8.76 149. Porcheron M, Lee M, Nesset B, Guribye F, van der Goot M, Moore KR, Usbeck R, Paiva A, Pelachaud C, Ruane E, Schuller B, Laban G, Kontogiorgos D, Kraus M, Følstad A (2022) Defini- tion, conceptualisation and measurement of trust. Dagstuhl Rep 11(8):101-105. https://doi.org/10.4230/DAGREP.11.8.76 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Laban, G., Kappas, A., Morrison, V., & Cross, E. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Constructor University (DE)
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Cross, Emily S.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Social Robotics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-11-30
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
1-27
ISSN
  • 1875-4791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-4805
DOI
10.1007/s12369-023-01076-z
OpenAlex
W4389197313
Cited by
119
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7
FWCI
27.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Social Robotics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
Funders
  • H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (814072)
  • H2020 European Research Council (677270)
  • Leverhulme Trust (PLP-2018-152)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
social robots, human-robot interaction, self-disclosure, long-term interaction, robot perception, mood, loneliness, stress, emotional well-being, Pepper robot, conversation partners, COVID-19 pandemic

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