An´ alisis Cohesitivo

Interaction occurs in the first encounter and in the subsequent encounters –if any- between the child and the robotic-pet and may greatly differ from immediate impression. It necessarily comes after the first impression stage but it is not necessarily followed by the sustained usage stage. Each episode of interaction increases or decreases the probability to progress forward adoption. This second phase after initial exposures is when people decide between adopting and continuing or rejecting and discontinuing the use of a technology

The main features of this stage are that i) the robot is evaluated in the first days according to expectations and affordances, ii) robot’s capabilities and limitations are learned (Fink et al., 2013; J. Y. Sung et al., 2010), iii) interactional patterns with the robot are developed (Pitsch &

Koch, 2010) and, eventually iv) affective behaviors appear or consolidate.

Evaluating against expectancies

Robot’s actual usage is compared with expected functionality or utility (Kaplan, 2005) and -as the studies on long-term interaction pinpoint- the main risk is disappointment or disenchantment (De Graaf et al., 2017) when the –high- expectations participants initially had are not met. In general, interaction with any object is enjoyable when actual function matches or is superior to expected functionality. But in the case of pet-robots the expectancy may be huge: the illusion of experience Pleo as an alternative to a live “pet” (Fernaeus et al., 2010). All the families observed spontaneously made comparisons between Pleo and a pet animal because Pleo belongs

to a category of commercial products that are broadly been spoken as electronic pets and one of this major selling points has been its capability to develop into a more complex and responsive entity with time, like a living being (F Kaplan, 2005).

Table 3-2 Coding Scheme of reasons for no-use

(Source De Graaf, Allouch, & Van Dijk, 2017)

Code Definition

Disenchantment A state of disappointment or disillusion regarding (the use of) the robot.

End of novelty Losing the earlier increased interest in the robot Lack of motivation Lacking a driving force to use the robot.

Need not satisfied Being displeased or feeling discontent with a sought need the robot should fulfill.

Reliance on others The act of or the perceived need to rely on others to be able to (properly) use the robot.

Replaced by other device The replacement of applications or the complete use of the robot with another device.

Restrictions and problems Foreseeing or experiencing barriers to use the robot.

Cultural and societal expectancies on robotics are higher than more mundane technology in a mixture of misleading beliefs and naïve fantasies. In particular, in the case of Pleo, the lack of active and explicit activity seems overshadows the more subtle form of interaction that Pleo do in fact perform (Fernaeus et al., 2010). Expectancies not met, according to previous long-term studies on Pleo adoption, are Pleo walking and attending to objects and sounds, the level of intelligence and computational features, as well as the level of basic technical robustness.

The challenge in this stage is sustaining momentum and keeping children engaged and interested when the novelty effect is worn off.

... a frequently occurring phenomenon in the interaction of humans with machines is that people are initially interested in interacting with an artificial entity; but are, however, quickly bored or annoyed with it, refuse to use it again and even show aggression towards the system. (von der Pütten, Krämer, & Eimler, 2011, 327)

In particular, Kaplan (F Kaplan, 2005) suggests the following strategies –from design and communication- to avoid disappointment and to lead to a positive short-term experience::

 The design should convey clear message about the type and context of use of the robot, triggering the right kind of expectancies

 The communication (i.e. publicity, instructions, affordances) should be realistic and do not induce overestimations of the robot’s real competencies (e.g. speech understanding) that lead to disappointing experiences

 Robots should be transparent providing maximum information about what they can and cannot do

On the other hand, Dautenhahn recommends to draw lessons particularly from situations where people do not treat robots socially, to unveil the aspects of a robots’ appearance and behavior that might break the illusion and how to recover from such situations (Kerstin Dautenhahn, 2007a).

Development of Interactional Skills

This is the phase of acquiring the social skills to interact smoothly and satisfactory with the pet-robots, getting to know their limits and capabilities, exploring its potentiality, guessing rules and mechanisms, identifying social and technological patterns (i.e. Pleo’s favorite food, how AIBO track the pink ball), understanding cause-effect relationships and pushing the robot’s limits both physical and psychological (F Kaplan, 2005). Engagement and enjoyment are reinforced when the dyad succeeds in a contingent interaction related with the basic functions of the owner-pet situation, what Pitsch names the interactional responsive conduct as “attempts to stablish contingent interaction with the system” (Pitsch & Koch, 2010).

Sometimes the interaction is too difficult and effortful to get the intended social interchange with the robot, when to master how to use the robot is perceived as too difficult or effortful.

These restrictions and problems (foreseen or experienced barriers to use) are reported by De Graaf as the second reason why (after disenchantment) participants gave up using the robot in this phase of the adoption process (De Graaf et al., 2017).

Affective Involvement

In the affective dimension, typical observed behaviors that appear in this stage are individualization, personalization and bonding, such us giving nicknames, creating a special place, assigning things for it and bringing to show to friends and colleagues. A particularly common practice is personalization through accessorizing adorning the pet with different items (Jacobsson, 2009).

Very commonly the “owner” decides gender and choose a name (in some cases gender simply follows from picking the name) what are frequently important and particularly joyful episodes

maybe related to our culture naming is an important piece of a larger process including individualization, bonding and family integration (Jacobsson, 2009).

This affective involvement expresses in behaviors of taking care of the pet’s needs and giving affection such as petting and touching and talking to. Social rapport can manifest as well in substantial (i.e. body to body) contact as carrying in arms, reassuring, cuddling, stroking, hugging, pressing to bosom, making it sleep.. (Fernaeus et al., 2010) This process of individualization and emotional involvement could lead to dilemmas when Pleo has to be replaced if breaks down or malfunctioning because people feel attached to the particular Pleo and prefer not to be replaced (Jacobsson, 2009).

Ecological Compatibility

In the long-run, the pet-robots’ chance to be adopted lies on being compatible with the environment -Fernaeus reported a family that quit the study because Pleo disturbed their dog- fitting the existing eco-systems of toys and resources in the homes grounding on existing play practices and in the context of the use (Fernaeus et al., 2010).

On the other hand, pet robots –and Pleo in particular- seems to require a great deal of care as a part of the relationship, while maintenance issues like skin deterioration (i.e. smell and the paint on the back wears because of the petting) and degradation in general begins to appear (Jacobsson, 2009). Users unavoidably are required to engage in maintenance activities as prepare, update and recharge. A main challenge to bridge the gap between play and maintenance is to make maintenance’s tasks accessible for children and integrated in the regular interaction (Fernaeus et al., 2010). While the maintenance of a real pet is part of the interaction and other appliances act needy in order to call for maintenance or care (e.g. Tagamochi, Roomba), pet robots like Pleo simply stop working, and generally requires the adults’ intervention.

In this phase Pleo is experienced as well as a resource for social engagement (Jacobsson, 2009) and some users join in informal communities of friends owning similar toys (Fernaeus et al., 2010).

The strategies in this phase are: supporting the natural proneness to individualization and personalization that reinforces the attachment and the liking, exciting the technological curiosity once the wonder of the novelty effect has faded away, promote occasions for including the robot in play and fantasy games engaging new participants (collaborative game).

The desirable outcome of this phase that leads to lasting relationship are adoption in terms of routine practice and, eventually, bonding (emotional rapport). Users that gave up the robot

during this initial period of short-term interaction are, according to De Graaf classification discontinuers, those users who decide to stop using a technology after previous initial adoption (De Graaf et al., 2017).