CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Social Robot Interaction and HRILanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesCybernetics and Technology in Society

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

When a Robot Comes to Life: The Interactional Achievement of Agency as a Transient Phenomenon

Open access
Pelikan, Hannah, Broth, Mathias, Keevallik, Leelo·2022·Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality
DOI 10.7146/si.v5i3.129915
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Conceptualizing agency is a long-standing theoretical concern. Taking an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic perspective, we explore agency as the oriented to capacity to produce situationally and sequentially relevant action. Drawing on video recordings of families interacting with the Cozmo toy robot, we present a multimodal analysis of a single episode featuring a variety of rapidly interchanging forms of robotic (non-)agency. We demonstrate how agency is ongoingly constituted in situated interaction between humans and a robot. Describing different ways in which the robot’s statuses as either an agent or an object are interactionally embodied into being, we distinguish “autonomous” agency, hybrid agency, ascribed agency, potential agency and non-agency.

Overview

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 · 10.7146/si.v5i3.129915

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Antaki, C., & Crompton, R. J. (2015). Conversational practices promoting a discourse of agency for adults with intellectual disabilities. Discourse & Society, 26(6), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926515592774 · DOI
  2. Asaro, P. M. (2000). Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10(4), 257–290. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8022(00)00004-7 · DOI
  3. Auer, P., Bauer, A., & Hörmeyer, I. (2020). How Can the ‘Autonomous Speaker’ Survive in Atypical Interaction? The Case of Anarthria and Aphasia. In R. Wilkinson, J. P. Rae, & G. Rasmussen (Eds.), Atypical Interaction: The Impact of Communicative Impairments within Everyday Talk (pp. 373–408). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28799-3_13 · DOI
  4. Bekey, G. A. (2005). Autonomous Robots: From Biological Inspiration to Implementation and Control. MIT Press.
  5. Bohus, D., & Horvitz, E. (2011). Multiparty Turn Taking in Situated Dialog: Study, Lessons, and Directions. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2011 Conference (pp. 98–109). USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  6. Boudouraki, A., Fischer, J. E., Reeves, S., & Rintel, S. (2021). “I can’t get round” Recruiting assistance in mobile robotic telepresence. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432947 · DOI
  7. Bradshaw, J. M., Hoffman, R. R., Johnson, M., & Woods, D. D. (2013). The Seven Deadly Myths of “Autonomous Systems.” IEEE Intelligent Systems, 28(3), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2013.70 · DOI
  8. Braitenberg, V. (1986). Vehicles. Experiments in Synthetic Psychology. MIT Press.
  9. Bratman, M.E., 1987, Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  10. Breazeal, C. (2002). Designing Sociable Robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  11. Broth, M., Cromdal, J., & Levin, L. (2019). Telling the other’s side: Formulating others’ mental states in driver training. Language & Communication, 65, 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.007 · DOI
  12. Button, G., & Sharrock, W. W. (2010). The structure problem in the context of structure and agency controversies. In A. Denis & P. J. Martin (Eds.), Human Agents and Social Structures (pp. 17–33). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  13. Bødker, S., Dindler, C., Iversen, O. S., & Smith, R. C. (2021). Participatory Design. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 14(5), i–143. https://doi.org/10.2200/S01136ED1V01Y202110HCI052 · DOI
  14. Clark, H. H., & Fischer, K. (2022). Social robots as depictions of social agents. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22000668 · DOI
  15. Clayman, S. E. (2013). Agency in response: The role of prefatory address terms. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001 · DOI
  16. Curl, T. S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1257–1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004 · DOI
  17. Davidson, D., 1980, Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  18. Demuth, C. (2021). Managing accountability of children’s bodily conduct: Embodied discursive practices in preschool. In S. Wiggins & K. O. Cromdal (Eds.), Discursive Psychology and Embodiment: Beyond Subject-Object Binaries (pp. 81–111). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-53709-8_4 · DOI
  19. Dennett, D. C. (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  20. Due, B. L. (2021a). RoboDoc: Semiotic resources for achieving face-to-screenface formation with a telepresence robot. Semiotica, 2021(238), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0148 · DOI
  21. Due, B. L. (2021b). Distributed Perception: Co‐Operation between Sense‐Able, Actionable, and Accountable Semiotic Agents. Symbolic Interaction, 44(1), 134–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.538 · DOI
  22. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://www.uk.sagepub.com/books/9780803976979
  23. Enfield, N. J. (2014). Human agency and the infrastructure for requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in Social Interaction (pp. 35–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  24. Fischer, K. (2011). Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. In 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 53–60). https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957672 · DOI
  25. Fischer, K. (2021). Tracking Anthropomorphizing Behavior in Human-Robot Interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442677 · DOI
  26. Forlizzi, J., & DiSalvo, C. (2006). 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). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1121241.1121286 · DOI
  27. Garfinkel, H. (1991). Respecification: evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order*, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in and as of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society (I): an announcement of studies. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences (pp. 10–19). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  29. Goodwin, C. (2004). A Competent Speaker Who Can't Speak: The Social Life of Aphasia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(2), 151-170. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2004.14.2.151 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-Operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (Eds.). (1991). Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. CRC Press.
  32. Harjunpää, K. (2021). Brokering co-participants’ volition in request and offer sequences. In A. P. Jan Lindström Ritva Laury & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in language and social interaction (pp. 135–159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Retrieved from https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027259035-pbns.326.07har
  33. Hedayati, H., Szafir, D., & Andrist, S. (2019). Recognizing F-Formations in the Open World. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 558–559). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673233 · DOI
  34. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York, N.Y: Polity Press.
  35. Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: acquiesence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives (pp. 179–192). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Hirschauer, S. (1991). The manufacture of bodies in surgery. Social Studies of Science, 21(2), 279–319.
  37. Hollnagel, E., & Woods, D. (2005). Joint Cognitive Systems: Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  38. Jakonen, T., & Jauni, H. (2021). Mediated learning materials: visibility checks in telepresence robot mediated classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 12(1–2), 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2020.1808496 · DOI
  39. Jung, M. F. (2017). Affective grounding in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 263–273). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020224 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Keevallik, L. (2017). Negotiating deontic rights in second position. In L. R. M.-L. Sorjonen & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action (pp. 271–295). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.09kee · DOI
  41. Klowait, N., & Erofeeva, М. A. (2021). The Rise of Interactional Multimodality in Human-Computer Interaction. The Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic & Social Changes, 1(1), 46–70. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.1.1793 · DOI
  42. Krummheuer, A. (2015a). Technical agency in practice: The enactment of artefacts as conversation partners, actants and opponents. PsychNology Journal, 13(2–3), 179–202.
  43. Krummheuer, A. (2015b). Performing an action one cannot do: Participation, scaffolding and embodied interaction. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 6(2), 187–210. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jircd.v6i2.26986 · DOI
  44. Laurier, E., Maze, R., & Lundin, J. (2006). Putting the Dog Back in the Park: Animal and Human Mind-in-Action. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1301_2 · DOI
  45. Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford UP.
  46. Licoppe, C. (2021). The politics of visuality and talk in French courtroom proceedings with video links and remote participants. Journal of Pragmatics, 178, 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.023 · DOI
  47. Miksell, L. (2010). Repetitional responses in frontotemporal dementia discourse: Asserting agency or demonstrating confusion? Discourse Studies, 12(4), 465–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370127 · DOI
  48. Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016 · DOI
  49. Otsuka, K., Yamato, J., Takemae, Y., & Murase, H. (2006). Conversation Scene Analysis with Dynamic Bayesian Network Basedon Visual Head Tracking. In 2006 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (pp. 949–952). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICME.2006.262677 · DOI
  50. Parenti, L., Marchesi, S., Belkaid, M., & Wykowska, A. (2021). Exposure to Robotic Virtual Agent Affects Adoption of Intentional Stance. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (pp. 348–353). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472307.3484667 · DOI
  51. Pelikan, H. R. M., Broth, M., & Keevallik, L. (2020). “Are You Sad, Cozmo?”: How Humans Make Sense of a Home Robot’s Emotion Displays. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 461–470). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374814 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Peräkylä, A. (2002). Agency and authority: extended responses to diagnostic statements in primary care encounters. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3502_5 · DOI
  53. Pitsch, K. (2016). Limits and Opportunities for Mathematizing Communicational Conduct for Social Robotics in the Real World? Toward Enabling a Robot to Make Use of the Human’s Competences. AI & Society, 31(4), 587–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0629-0 · DOI
  54. Porcheron, M., Fischer, J. E., & Reeves, S. (2020). Pulling back the curtain on the Wizards of Oz. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW3). https://doi.org/10.1145/3432942 · DOI
  55. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation. How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  56. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
  57. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  58. Sterponi, L. (2003). Account episodes in family discourse: the making of morality in everyday interaction. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010401 · DOI
  59. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  60. Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions, 2nd ed. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
  61. Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.614053 · DOI
  62. Weatherall, A. (2020). Constituting Agency in the Delivery of Telephone-Mediated Victim Support. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17(3), 396–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1725951 · DOI
  63. Weatherall, A., & Keevallik, L. (2016). When claims of understanding are less than affiliative. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(3), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1196544 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 23

Metadata

Authors
Pelikan, H., Broth, M., & Keevallik, L.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
ORCID
Venue
Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality
Publisher
Det Kgl. Bibliotek/Royal Danish Library
Published
2022-10-13
Volume
5
Issue
3
ISSN
2446-3620 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.7146/si.v5i3.129915
OpenAlex
W4306153848
Cited by
23
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2
FWCI
3.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Interaction Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
Keywords
agency, human-robot interaction, toy robots, robot agency, hybrid agency, family interaction, multimodal interaction, situated interaction

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: When a Robot Comes to Life: The Interactional Achievement of Agency as a Transient Phenomenon. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7146/si.v5i3.129915
The paper
Pelikan, H., Broth, M., & Keevallik, L. (2022). When a Robot Comes to Life: The Interactional Achievement of Agency as a Transient Phenomenon. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality. https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v5i3.129915