Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot
Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction
How people anthropomorphize robots
Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction
Virtual Human versus Human Administration of Photographic Lineups
IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications
The oz of wizard: simulating the human for interaction research
Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction
No fair!!: an interaction with a cheating robot
Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction
A conversational robot in an elderly care center: an ethnographic study
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction
Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes?
HRI '12 Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction
Designing persuasive robots: how robots might persuade people using vocal and nonverbal cues
HRI '12 Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction
Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper presents research results from a study to determine whether eyewitness memory was impacted by a human interviewer versus a robot interviewer when presented misleading post-event information. The study was conducted with 101 participants who viewed a slideshow depicting the events of a crime. All of the participants interacted with the humanoid robot, NAO, by playing a trivia game. Participants were then interviewed by either a human or a robot interviewer that presented either control or misleading information about the events depicted in the slideshow. This was followed by another filler interval task of trivia with the robot. Following the interview and robot interactions, participants completed a paper-pencil post-event memory test to determine their recall of the events of the slideshow. The results indicated that eyewitnesses were misled by a human interviewer (t(46) = 2.79, p d = 0.83) but not by a robot interviewer (t(46) = 0.34, p 0.05). The results of this research could have strong implications for the gathering of sensitive information from an eyewitness about the events of a crime.