What is a Robot Companion – Friend, Assistant or

Butler?*
Kerstin Dautenhahn, Sarah Woods, Christina Kaouri, Michael L. Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, Iain Werry
Computer Science Department
Adaptive Systems Research Group
University of Hertfordshire
College Lane, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, U.K.
{[Link]; [Link]; [Link]; [Link], [Link]}@[Link]

Abstract – The study presented in this paper explored developing such robots, e.g. [7]. More and more studies are
people’s perceptions and attitudes towards the idea of a future investigating people’s attitudes towards and perceptions of
robot companion for the home. A human-centred approach was robots. For example, the Sony Aibo [3], an autonomous
adopted using questionnaires and human-robot interaction trials entertainment robot for the home designed to elicit emotions
to derive data from 28 adults. Results indicated that a large
and show instincts, learning and growth abilities is often used
proportion of participants were in favour of a robot companion
and saw the potential role as being an assistant, machine or in child-robot interaction studies. Aibo's design has been
servant. Few wanted a robot companion to be a friend. House- inspired by dog behaviour and appearance [8]. Research by
hold tasks were preferred to child/animal care tasks. Humanlike Friedman et al. [9], and Kahn et al. [10] using unstructured
communication was desirable for a robot companion, whereas play sessions for children and online discussion forums for
humanlike behaviour and appearance were less essential. Results adults, demonstrated that AIBO was psychologically engaging
are discussed in relation to future research directions for the for both adults and children in terms of life-like essences,
development of robot companions. mental states and social rapports. However, participants rarely
attributed moral standing to AIBO.
Index Terms – robot companion, robot-human interaction,
Pransky [11] has provided an interesting perspective for
social robotics, robot appearance, human perception and attitudes
the different profiles a future robot companion could take
I. INTRODUCTION providing the advantages and weaknesses of such a future
companion. The ‘Robotic Nanny’ would on the one hand play
An autonomous robot companion might be viewed as a with children and feed them but on the other hand could lead
special kind of service robot that is specifically designed for to a child not having any human interaction and viewing robot
personal use at home. Robot companions are expected to interaction as the ‘norm’. A ‘Robotic Assistant/homework
communicate with non-experts in a natural and intuitive way. companion’ would be able to organise your meetings and
Robots designed for the home are a growing industry from research, and track documents, but could lead to the feeling
both a research and commercial perspective. A survey by the that robot interaction is easier than human interaction. Finally,
United Nations for example has reported that “robots are set to the ‘Robotic Butler/Maid’ could do all the housework, but may
become increasingly familiar companions in the home by well cause relationship difficulties at home by being too
2007.” By 2007 it is predicted that there will be almost 2.5 efficient and making one feel redundant.
million entertainment and “leisure” robots in homes which Investigating the design space of robots is a challenging
compares to 137,000 currently [1]. task that needs to consider various factors [12]. For example,
Human-robot interaction research is still relatively new in Goetz et al. [13, 14] revealed that people expect a robot to
comparison to traditional service robotics where e.g. robots look and act appropriately for different tasks. A robot that
deliver hospital meals or provide security services, application performs in a playful manner is preferred for a fun carefree
domains that require relatively minimal human-robot game, but a serious robot is preferred for a serious health
interaction [2]. However, increasingly robots are meant to related exercise regime. It seems that if a robot cannot comply
engage in social-human interaction including e.g. [3], [4], [5], with the user’s expectations, they will be disappointed and
[6]. Robot companions in the home should ideally be able to unengaged with the robot. If a robot closely resembles a
perform a wide array of tasks including educational functions, human in appearance but then does not behave like one, there
home security, diary duties, entertainment and message is the danger of the human-robot interaction breaking down. It
delivery services, etc. Currently, there are no robots that are could even lead to feelings of revulsion against the robot as in
able to perform a combination of these tasks efficiently, the ‘Uncanny Valley’ proposed by Mashiro Mori [15, 16].
accurately and robustly. However, research is under way for Methods used in psychology can provide a useful starting
point for exploring a human-centred approach for a robot

*
The work described in this paper was conducted within the EU Integrated Project COGNIRON ("The Cognitive Robot Companion") and was funded by the
European Commission Division FP6-IST Future and Emerging Technologies under Contract FP6-002020.
companion [16]. The studies by Khan [17] and Scopelliti, rather ‘mechanical’ appearance, specifically designed for HRI
Giuliani, D’Amico and Fornara [18] are among the first to experiments. The questionnaires relevant to this part of the
have used a psychological design framework using study were the Cogniron Introductory Questionnaire
questionnaires to explore adults attitudes towards the design of (providing demographic details), and the Cogniron Final
a domestic robot. Khan [17] examined adults’ attitudes Questionnaire (investigating people’s attitudes and perceptions
towards an intelligent service robot, using a survey which towards robots).
included a variety of different concepts including what people
thought robots should look like, how robots could be used for Sample: Table I illustrates the sample characteristics.
service purposes in the household, how the robots should TABLE I: Sample Characteristics
behave, and how humans have conceived their ideas and
images of robots. The survey revealed that most participants Sample Characteristics (N: 28): Recruited from
were positive towards the idea of an intelligent service robot. University of Hertfordshire
Scopelliti et al. [18] investigated people’s representation of Gender
domestic robots across three different generations, taking into Male 50%
account gender and educational level, in an attempt to bridge Female 50%
the gap between technological capabilities and user Age
<25 7%
expectations. Their results demonstrated that young people
26-35 43%
tend to have positive feelings towards domestic robots, 36-45 29%
whereas elderly people were more frightened of the prospect 46-55 11%
of a robot in the home. Occupation
The European project Cogniron (Cognitive Robot Student 39%
Academic/faculty staff 43%
Companion, [Link] aims to study many of Researcher 18%
the above topics surrounding the development of robot-human Educational/career background
interaction. One of the key aims of the project is to explore Technology related 50%
Non technological (e.g. law) 50%
what having a robot companion in the home means to people.
We adopted a human-centred approach to investigate what
Instruments:
people’s perceptions and desires for a robot companion are
and explored the following research questions: Cogniron Introductory Questionnaire: This questionnaire
• Are people accepting of the idea of robot companions in enquired about participants’ personal details (age, gender,
the home? occupation), level of familiarity with robots, prior experience
• What are people’s perceptions of a future robot with robots (at work, as toys, in movies/books, in TV shows,
companion? in museums or in schools), and level of technical knowledge of
o What specific tasks do people want a robot robots were rated according to a 5-point Likert scale.
companion to perform? Cogniron Final Questionnaire: Table II outlines the
o What appearance should a robot companion have? content of this questionnaire.
o What are peoples’ attitudes towards a socially
interactive robot in terms of robot behaviour and Procedure: All subjects completed consent forms before
character traits? completing the Cogniron Questionnaires and robot interaction
o What aspects of social robot-interaction do people trials. After completing the introductory questionnaire,
find the most and least acceptable? subjects were exposed to a series of human-robot interaction
trials, cf. fig. 5. Finally, participants completed the Cogniron
II. METHOD Final Questionnaire that enquired about future home robot
companions and qualitative aspects of the robot interaction
The part of the methodology reported here is taken from a trials.
larger study where subjects participated in a human-robot III. RESULTS
interaction study within a simulated living room. The
interaction trials and their analysis were the main purpose of Acceptance of robot companions: Responses for
the larger study, research questions and results will be reported acceptance of computers and computer related technology in
in forthcoming papers. This paper’s subject is the analysis and the home were more positive compared to responses for the
interpretation of questionnaire data regarding people’s likeability of having a robot companion in the home. 82% of
perceptions and attitudes towards a robot. subjects liked or liked very much the concept of computing
Design: A series of questionnaires were collected before technology in the home compared to just under 40% for a
and after an interaction session with a PeopleBotTM robot. robot companion (Fig. 1 for likeability of a robot companion
These robots are used as a research platform for research into in the home). No significant differences were found for
future robot companions by several research partners in the gender, age or level of expertise with technology.
Cogniron project. It is a human-sized, non-humanoid robot of
 differences were found for gender, or level of expertise with
technology.
TABLE II Content of the Cogniron Final Questionnaire
Task performance for a robot companion: When they
were asked what tasks they would like this future robot to be
Section 1 (rated using 5-point likert scale) able to carry out, the majority of the subjects wanted the robot
to be able to do household (vacuuming) jobs (96.4%).
• What is a robot companion?
• Do you like the idea of having a robot companion at home?
80
• What role do you think a future robot companion in the home
should have? 70
• What tasks would you like a future robot to be able to carry
out? 60
• How controllable, predictable & considerate should a future 50
robot be?
• How human-like should the robot appear, behave & % 40
communicate? 30
• What speed should a robot companion approach?
• How close should the robot come to you? 20
• Should the robot pay attention to what you are doing? 10
• Should the robot be polite and give way if people encounter
it? 0
• Should the robot try to find out if you need help before it assistant machine servant mate f riend
helps? role f uture robot companion
Section 2 (rated using 5-point likert scale)
Fig. 2 Desired roles for a future robot companion
• Questions about the subjects’ feelings after robot interaction Only 10.7% of subjects wanted the robot to be able to
session
• Open-ended question about what participants found the most look after their children. Guarding the house, entertainment
interesting & most annoying during the robot trials. and gardening were also popular choices for robot roles
• Open-ended question about whether anything should be around the home (Fig. 3). No significant differences were
changed regarding the robot (appearance, speech, behavior). found for gender, age or level of expertise with technology
related disciplines.
35 100
90
30 80
25 70
60
20 % 50
%
15 40
30
10 20
5 10
0
0 vacuum security entertain gardening childcare
like v like neutral don't like don't like Robot companion tasks
much at all
role future robot companion Fig. 3 Preferred tasks for robot companion in the home
Robot companion behaviour traits: Most participants
Fig. 1 Likeability of robot companion in the home expressed that they would want the behaviour of a robot
The potential role of a robot companion: When asked companion to be highly predictable (54%) or predictable
what role they thought a future ‘robot companion in the home (36%). Only 11% were neutral about the potential
should have’, the majority of participants wanted the robot as predictability of the robot’s behaviour. In line with
an assistant (79%), a machine/appliance (71%) followed by a requirements for predictable behaviour, 71% of subjects
servant (46%) (Fig. 2). Fewer people wanted the robot responded that they would want a robot companion to be
companion as a ‘friend’ or a ‘mate’. † Younger subjects highly controllable or controllable. Only one person (4%)
suggested that they would like to have a future robot stated that they robot should not be controllable. The
companion in the home as a friend, compared to none of the expression of highly considerate behaviour by a robot
older subjects (t (26) = 2.69, p = .01). No significant companion was also desired by most subjects (86%), and 14%
wanted the robot to be behave in considerate manner towards
them and other family members. No significant differences
† were found for gender or level of expertise with technology
Items in fig. 2 & 3 were scored dichotomously as yes/no answers
related disciplines compared to non-technology related
subjects.
Robot companion movement: When asked about what
speed a considerate robot should approach, the majority (56%)
responded neither fast nor slow‡. 22% would want the robot to
move at a very slow or slow speed. Regarding how close the
robot should come to them, 63% said that it should come close
to them. Only 4% wanted the robot to come very close to
them. The majority of subjects stated that a considerate robot
companion should pay attention to what they are doing (85%).
Only 15% did not want the robot to pay them any attention.
Most subjects noted that a considerate robot companion should Fig. 5 Subject interacting with PeopleBotTM robot in simulated living room
be polite and give way to them (70%). With regards to the
robot finding out if the subject would want help with a task,
37% of subjects stated that they would prefer the robot to try IV. DISCUSSION
to find out if they needed help and 41% would want a robot to
quietly wait to find out if they needed help. No significant The major aims of this study were to explore peoples’
gender or age differences were revealed. However, subjects attitudes and perceptions towards the idea of having a future
who had no experience with robots wanted the robot to pay robot companion in the home. More specifically, we asked
more attention to them compared to those subjects who had subjects about their level of acceptance of a robot companion
experience with robots (t (25) = 2.41, p = 0.02). Having no in the home, and what types of roles and tasks they would
experience with robots was also related to how considerate a envisage a robot in the home performing.
robot should be and the wish for the robot to find out if they A summary of the main results indicate that:
wanted help more than those who had experience with robots • 40% of participants in the current study were in favour of
(t (25) = 2.33, p = 0.03). the idea of having a robot companion in the home. This
Desired appearance for a robot companion: Participants’ compared to 80% who stated that they liked having
responses about human-like appearance, behaviour and mode computer technology in the home.
of communication for a robot companion were somewhat • Most subjects saw the potential role of a robot companion
mixed. 71% of subjects would want a robot companion to in the home as being an assistant, machine or servant.
communicate in a very human-like or human-like manner. Few were open to idea of having a robot as a friend or
However, human-like behaviour and appearance were less mate.
desirable. 36% thought that the robot should behave either
• In terms of specific tasks for a robot companion, 90%
very human-like or human like, and 29% stated that a robot in
stated that it would be useful for the robot to do the
the home should appear human-like or very-human like (Fig.
vacuuming. This compared to only 10% who would want
4). Figure 5 illustrates a subject interacting with the
the robot to assist with child-care duties.
PeopleBotTM robot.
Subjects Preferences for
• A future robot companion would need to be predictable,
a How Human-like Companion Robot Should Be controllable, considerable and polite (possibly based on
Subjects Responces
the current responses of the PeopleBotTM).
Strongly For • Human-like communication was desired for a robot
For
companion. Human-like behaviour and appearance were
less important.
Score

Neutral

It was an encouraging finding that 40% of subjects were in

favour of the idea of robot companions in the home, although
Against

Strongly Against this figure was lower than the 80% who enjoyed having
computer technology in the home. This figure was lower than
the 70% of respondents who reported it was a positive idea to
Appearance

Behavior

Communication

have a service robot in the home in the pilot study conducted

by Khan [17]. However, this study was different to the current
Human-like one as it was based on static images of robots and did not
Fig. 4 Subject preferences for how human-like a robot companion should be. involve live interactions. A possible reason for the differences
Means and standard deviations are shown in liking a robot in the home and computer technology could
‡
relate to habituation and familiarity effects as computer
We are aware that “fast” & “slow” are subjective terms. Since this technology is far more prevalent and accessible to the general
questionnaire was given after the robot interactions, judgements were likely to
have been based on the PeopleBot TM speeds which ranged from 200 mm/s – public compared to robot companion technology. Also, few
800 mm/s. subjects were completely against the idea of robot companions
and most subjects appeared to enjoy interacting with the robot which slows the user down. This finding could again relate to
trials. Therefore, it is possible that the subjects felt the unfamiliarity aspect and the possible difficulties in
uncomfortable with the idea of a robot companion rather than imagining the precise functions of a robot companion in the
the reality of the interaction and as robot technology becomes home. Most people want to be able to understand the logic
more widely available the differences may become smaller. behind technological devices; therefore it was not surprising
Dario et al. [19] reported that motor-disabled people were that a predictable robot companion was desired. Khan [17]
accepting and favourable towards a personal assistance robot reported similar findings as people in their study did not want
in the home, in terms of robot appearance, helpfulness and the robot to be too smart, but able to conduct limited actions
behaviour. This is in line with our findings although assistive according to its programs.
robots are different from more general-purpose robot The fact that subjects wanted a robot companion to have
companions that are relevant to our study. humanlike communication was not a surprising one, as it is a
When the subjects were questioned about the future roles natural human instinct to want to communicate using speech
and behaviours of robots in the home, a clear divide emerged. and gestures that are recognisable by humans. Somewhat
All of the roles which are already, traditionally associated with surprising was that participants did not want the robot to
robots were selected as well as household assistant, gardener behave and appear in a purely humanlike fashion. However,
and security guard. More than fifty percent of the subjects there is growing research evidence for the Uncanny Valley
selected these as roles to be performed in the future. However, theory that as a robot approaches pure humanlike appearance,
roles such as looking after children, being a friend or being a people generally exhibit discomfort and even revulsion
mate were selected by less than eighteen percent of the group. towards it. This could also be true of humanlike behaviour for
These are all roles which are considered within the ‘human a robot and relates to a human perception of feeling threatened
domain’ and which only a human is able to perform. Some [15, 16].
individuals however, in other study can foresee a caretaking The current study was exploratory in nature and has
role for the robot, for example “I would like having a robot to revealed many findings that could be relevant for future
help me to do something, like taking care of my baby in case research ideas and robot companion design. However, a
he fell from bed” cf. [1]. This could relate to people’s potential drawback of the study could be the self-selected
perceptions that robots do not possess humanlike personality university sample that was recruited to participate. Future
or character traits. The human fear is sometimes held in the studies should attempt to recruit a more representative
extreme case, that robots could take over the world and replace population sample. Also, the cultural background of subjects,
human abilities [11]. There are no robots currently available which was not accessed in the present study, is likely to have a
on the market able to fully perform the functions of being a significant impact on people’s perception of robots. Moreover,
child-care assistant or friend, comparable to a human. They are none of the sample was older than 55 years, which means that
also roles which are the most difficult to prescribe specific the views of an elderly population are likely to be under
actions to in advance, or to specify precisely. These findings represented in this study. This study also relied on subjects
are also echoed in a pilot study carried out by Khan [17], imagining the role of a possible robot companion in the home,
which reported that respondents most wanted the robot to although they interacted in two different trials with
perform cleaning tasks. The least cited tasks they wanted the PeopleBotTM robots before completing the final questionnaire.
robot to perform were baby sitting, cat/dog watching and It is unclear to what extent these interactions might have
reading aloud. influenced the subjects’ opinions. Also, the trials were not run
Throughout the study, no differences due to gender or within a ‘real’ home and the scenarios did not cover all
level of technological experience were uncovered for possible types of interactions and tasks that might occur in a
perceptions and attitudes towards a robot companion. Only home. In future trials we hope to explore different types of
one age difference was revealed where some younger tasks in order to allow subjects to gain a greater understanding
participants were more in favour of a robot companion taking of possible robot capabilities. We are also aiming to use
the role of a friend, compared to none of the older subjects. longitudinal experimental paradigms with the same sample of
Likewise, the study by Scopelliti et al. [18] did not find any subjects, which will allow us to measure whether perceptions
gender or educational differences towards the idea of robots in and attitudes towards a robot companion change over time as
the home. However, they found that elderly participants were familiarity increases. A further aim is to change the behaviour
the most frightened of the prospect of having a robot in the and appearance of the robot to determine how these factors
home and showed an element of distrust towards the concept. influence people’s views long-term.
Most subjects wanted a robot companion to be
controllable and predictable. On one level, any technology for V. CONCLUSION
the home should be controllable, in that the user should be able
to instruct the device to perform requested actions. However, To conclude, the current study explored people’s
at the same time, any device should not necessarily require perceptions and attitudes towards the idea of a robot
constant supervision, or it ceases to be an aid and instead companion in the home. Interesting and positive results have
becomes at best an interface to a task, and at worst something emerged, indicating that a large proportion of people are
favourable to the idea of a robot companion. Results have [9] B. Friedman, P. H. Kahn (Jr.), and J. Hagman, "Hardware
companions? What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about
highlighted the specific roles and tasks that people would
the human-robotic relationship," Digital Sociability, vol. 5, pp.
prefer a robot companion to perform in addition to the desired 273-280, 2003.
behavioural and appearance characteristics. The finding that [10] P. H. Kahn (Jr.), B. Friedman, D. R. Perez-Granados, and N. G.
people frequently cited that they would like a future robot to Freier, "Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children," Proc.
perform the role of a servant is maybe similar to the human CHI, 2004.
[11] J. Pransky, "Social adjustments to a robotic future,"
‘butler’ role. Ogden & Dautenhahn [20] considered the [Link]/publications/[Link], pp. 1-10, 2004.
concept of ‘robotic etiquette’ in relation to body movements [12] T. Fong, I. Nourbakhsh, and K. Dautenhahn, "A survey of socially
and positioning to convey polite interactions to advance the interactive robots," Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 42,
social-interaction abilities of robots. A deeper exploration of pp. 143-166, 2003.
[13] J. Goetz and S. Kiesler, "Cooperation with a robotic assistant,"
the necessary training guidelines to become a competent butler Proc. CHI'02 Conference on Human Factors in Computing
could aid the design of future robot companions. For example, Systems, New York, USA, pp. 578-579, 2002.
butlers need to know how to wait discreetly until given an [14] J. Goetz, S. Kiesler, and A. Powers, "Matching robot appearance
order to perform a task, and to know when to speak to their and behaviour to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation,"
Proc. IEEE Ro-man, pp. 55-60, 2003.
employer. This requires great awareness and sensitivity to [15] K. Dautenhahn, "Design spaces and niche spaces of believable
social situations. Other tasks that a competent butler should be social robots", Proc. IEEE Ro-man, 192-197, 2002.
able to perform include: supervising staff, ensuring safety and [16] S. Woods, K. Dautenhahn, and J. Schulz, "The design space of
security, answering the door/phone, preparing meal services robots: Investigating children's views," Proc. IEEE Ro-man, pp.
47-52, 2004.
and social events, and valet duties etc. A mixed quantitative [17] Z. Khan, "Attitude towards intelligent service robots," NADA
and qualitative approach taken was advantageous for this KTH, Stockholm 1998.
research program. [18] M. Scopelliti, M. V. Giuliani, A. M. D'Amico, and F. Fornara, "If
As a cautionary note, one has to be aware that in any HRI I had a robot at home. Peoples' representation of domestic robots,"
in Designing a more inclusive world, S. Keates, J. Clarkson, P.
study it is practically and methodologically impossible to Langdon, and P. Robinson, Eds. Springer, 2004, pp. 257-266.
control for all possibly relevant factors that might influence an [19] P. Dario, E. Guglieimelli, and C. Laschi, "Humanoids and
experiment, as well as providing a large and balanced sample personal robots: Design and experiments," Journal of Robotic
size and rigorous analysis. Thus, exploratory studies like the Systems, vol. 18, pp. 673-690, 2001.
[20] B. Ogden and K. Dautenhahn, "Robotic etiquette: Structured
one reported in this paper, while they often raise more
interaction in humans and robots," Proc. SIRS2000, The
questions they are able to answer conclusively (generalizable University of Reading, England, pp. 353-361, 2000.
to all possible robot appearances, behaviours, contexts, tasks,
human subjects etc.), serve an important role in HRI research:
they can provide a starting point for identifying relevant future
research directions that then need to be investigated in more
depth in focussed studies.

REFERENCES

[1] B. News, "Robots set to get homely by 2007," in

[Link]
2004.
[2] D. Wilkes, R. Alford, R. Pack, R. Rogers, R. Peters, and K.
Kawamura, "Toward socially intelligent service robots," Applied
Artificial Intelligence Journal, vol. 12, pp. 729-766, 1997.
[3] Sony, "Sony Entertainment Robot Europe [Link]
[Link]/," 2004.
[4] C. L. Breazeal, Designing sociable robots. The MIT Press, 2002.
[5] L. Canamero, "Playing the emotion game with Feelix: What can a
LEGO robot tell us about emotion?" in Socially intelligent agents:
Creating relationships with computers and robots, K.
Dautenhahn, A. Bond, L. Canamero, and B. Edmonds, Eds.
Massachusetts, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, pp. 69-76.
[6] H. Ishiguro, T. Ono, M. Imai, T. Maeda, T. Kanda, and R.
Nakatsu, "Robovie: An interactive humanoid robot," Industrial
robot: An international journal, vol. 28, pp. 498-503, 2001.
[7] Wakamaru, "Target functions for "Wakamaru" under
development," in
[Link]
[Link], 2004.
[8] J. Pransky, "AIBO - the no. 1 selling service robot," Industrial
robot: An international journal, vol. 28, pp. 24-26, 2001.