Rhetorical robots: making robots more effective speakers using linguistic cues of expertise

ABSTRACT

Robots hold great promise as informational assistants such as museum guides, information booth attendants, concierges, shopkeepers, and more. In such positions, people will expect them to be experts on their area of specialty. Not only will robots need to be experts, but they will also need to communicate their expertise effectively in order to raise trust and compliance with the information that they provide. This paper draws upon literature in psychology and linguistics to examine cues in speech that would help robots not only to provide expert knowledge, but also to deliver this knowledge effectively. To test the effectiveness of these cues, we conducted an experiment in which participants created a plan to tour a fictional city based on suggestions by two robots. We manipulated the landmark descriptions along two dimensions of expertise: practical knowledge and rhetorical ability. We then measured which locations the participants chose to include in the tour based on their descriptions. Our results showed that participants were strongly influenced by both practical knowledge and rhetorical ability; they included more landmarks described using expert linguistic cues than those described using simple facts. Even when the overall level of practical knowledge was high, an increase in rhetorical ability resulted in significant improvements. These results have implications for the development of effective dialogue strategies for informational robots.

References

1. E. Campione and J. Véronis. A large-scale multilingual study of silent pause duration. In Proc. Speech Prosody '02, pages 199--202, 2002.
2. J. G. Carbonell. Metaphor: an inescapable phenomenon in natural language comprehension. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1981.
3. R. Carlson, K. Gustafson, and E. Strangert. Cues for hesitation in speech synthesis. In Proc. Interspeech '06, volume 6, 2006.
4. M. Chi, R. Glaser, and E. Rees. Expertise in problem solving. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1981.
5. V. Chidambaram, Y.-H. Chiang, and B. Mutlu. Designing persuasive robots: how robots might persuade people using vocal and nonverbal cues. In Proc. HRI '12, HRI '12, pages 293--300, 2012.
6. B. Fogg and H. Tseng. The elements of computer credibility. In Proc. CHI '99, pages 80--87, 1999.
7. S. K. Foss and C. L. Griffin. Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communications Monographs, 62(1):2--18, 1995.
8. M. Glass, J. Kim, M. Evens, J. Michael, and A. Rovick. Novice vs. expert tutors: A comparison of style. In Proc. MAICS '99, pages 43--49, 1999.
9. J. Ham, R. Bokhorst, R. Cuijpers, D. van der Pol, and J.-J. Cabibihan. Making robots persuasive: The influence of combining persuasive strategies (gazing and gestures) by a storytelling robot on its persuasive power. In Social Robotics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 71--83. Springer-Verlag, 2011.
10. E. J. Hartelius. The rhetoric of expertise. PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 2008.
11. N. Harvey and I. Fischer. Taking advice: Accepting help, improving judgment, and sharing responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(2):117--133, 1997.
12. J. R. Hobbs. Metaphor, metaphor schemata, and selective inferencing. Technical Report 204, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 1979.
13. M. Hyde. The ethos of rhetoric. Univ South Carolina Press, 2004.
14. E. Isaacs and H. Clark. References in conversation between experts and novices. J Experimental Psychology: General, 116(1):26, 1987.
15. C. Kidd and C. Breazeal. Robots at home: Understanding long-term human-robot interaction. In Proc. IROS '08, pages 3230--3235, 2008.
16. I. Kinchin. Effective teacher student dialogue: a model from biological education. J Biological Education, 37(3):110--113, 2003.
17. J. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. Simon, and H. Simon. Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208(4450):1335, 1980.
18. R. Looije, M. A. Neerincx, and F. Cnossen. Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: Design and evaluation of social behaviors. Intl J Human-Computer Studies, 68(6):386--397, 2010.
19. G. Marwell and D. Schmitt. Dimensions of compliance-gaining behavior: An empirical analysis. Sociometry, pages 350--364, 1967.
20. J. Noel. On the varieties of phronesis. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 31(3):273--289, 1999.
21. M. Roubroeks, J. Ham, and C. Midden. The dominant robot: Threatening robots cause psychological reactance, especially when they have incongruent goals. Persuasive Technology, pages 174--184, 2010.
22. M. Siegel, C. Breazeal, and M. Norton. Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In Proc. IROS '09, pages 2563--2568, 2009.
23. J. Sniezek and L. Van Swol. Trust, confidence, and expertise in a judge-advisor system. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(2):288--307, 2001.
24. C. Torrey. How robots can help: Communication strategies that improve social outcomes. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2009.
25. C. Torrey, A. Powers, M. Marge, S. Fussell, and S. Kiesler. Effects of adaptive robot dialogue on information exchange and social relations. In Proc. HRI '06, pages 126--133, 2006.

Index Terms

• Computing methodologies

  • Artificial intelligence

    • Philosophical/theoretical foundations of artificial intelligence

      • Cognitive science

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • Empirical studies in HCI

    • HCI design and evaluation methods

  • Interaction design

    • Interaction design process and methods

      • User centered design