“Can you answer questions, Flobi?”: Interactionally defining a robot's competence as a fitness instructor
Open accessAbstract
Users draw on four sources to judge a robot's competence: (1) the robot's voice, (2) physical appearance of and (3) the interaction experience with the robot but also (4) the relationship between the robot's physical appearance and its conduct. Furthermore, most approaches in social robotics have an outcome-oriented focus and thus use questionnaires to measure a global evaluation of the robot after interaction took place. The present research takes a process-oriented approach to explore the factors relevant in the formation of users' attitudes toward the robot. To do so, an ethnographic approach (Conversation Analysis) was employed to analyze the micro-coordination between user and robot. We report initial findings from a study in which a robot took the role of a fitness instructor. Our results emphasize that the participant judges step-by-step the robot's capabilities and differentiates its competence on two levels regarding to the robot's role: a robot as a (1) social/interactional co-participant and as a (2) fitness instructor.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The initial framing of the robot and its abilities to display interactional gaze practices are an important resource in opening an interaction.
“Both studies suggest that the initial framing of the robot and its abilities to display interactional gaze practices are an important resource in opening an interaction.”
From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Süssenbach et al. 2012
A user's initial expectations are shaped by how the robot is first introduced.
“They show that the user's initial expectations are shaped by how the robot is first introduced.”
From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Süssenbach et al. 2012
Users assess the system's competencies step-by-step and differentiate between the robot's role as a social actor and the robot's role in that specific interaction.
“Süssenbach et al. (2012) show that users assess the system's competencies step-by-step and that they differentiate between the robot's role as a social actor and the robot's role in that specific interaction (in their case, a fitness instructor).”
From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Süssenbach et al. 2012
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- sacks, 1992, Lectures on conversation
- su?ssenbach, 2011, Motivation im Sport Eine Konversationsanalytische Rekonstruktion Interaktiver Motivationsverfahren im "indoor Cycling"
- schegloff, 2002, Opening sequencing, Perpetual Contact Mobile Communication Private Talk, 326, 10.1017/CBO9780511489471.026 · DOI
- heerink, 2006, Studying the acceptance of a robotic agent by elderly users, International Journal of ARM International Journal of ARM, 7, 33
- kuchenbrandt, 2011, Effects of anticipated human-robot interaction and predictability of robot behavior on perceptions of anthropomorphism, 6th ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Lausanne
- 10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326340 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007 · DOI
- 10.1109/ROMAN.2012.6343876 · DOI
- pitsch, 2009, The first five seconds: Contingent stepwise entry into an interaction as a means to secure sustained engagement in human-robot-interaction, ROMAN (IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication) Toyama Japan, 985
- pitsch, 2010, How infants perceive the toy robot pleo: An exploratory case study on infant-robot-interaction, Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot-Interaction (AISB) Leicester UK, 80
- syrdal, 2009, The Negative Attitudes Towards Robots Scale and Reactions to Robot Behaviour in A Live Human-Robot Interaction Study
- eyssel, 2012, If you sound like me, you must be more human: On the interplay of robot and user features on human- robot acceptance and anthropomorphism, Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2012) Boston USA
- 10.1109/ROBOT.2010.5509173 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies
Mlynář, J., de Rijk, L., Liesenfeld, A., Stommel, W., & Albert, S. (2025) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-024-01919-x · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sussenbach, L., Pitsch, K., Berger, I., Riether, N., & Kummert, F.
- Affiliations
- Bielefeld University (DE)
- ORCID
- Pitsch, Karola
- Venue
- 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2012-09
- Pages
- 1121-1128
- ISSN
- 1944-9437 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2025622249
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.20
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pub.uni-bielefeld.de
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- IEEE RO-MAN (publishedVersion)
- PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Keywords
- robot competence, user-robot interaction, social robotics, voice, physical appearance, interaction experience, conversation analysis
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
