skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

When Exceptions Are the Norm: Exploring the Role of Consent in HRI

Published:18 July 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

HRI researchers have made major strides in developing robotic architectures that are capable of reading a limited set of social cues and producing behaviors that enhance their likeability and feeling of comfort amongst humans. However, the cues in these models are fairly direct and the interactions largely dyadic. To capture the normative qualities of interaction more robustly, we propose “consent” as a distinct, critical area for HRI research. Convening important insights in existing HRI work around topics like touch, proxemics, gaze, and moral norms, the notion of consent reveals key expectations that can shape how a robot acts in social spaces. Consent need not be limited to just an explicit permission given in ethically charged or normatively risky scenarios. Instead, it is a richer notion, one that covers even implicit acquiescence in scenarios that otherwise seem normatively neutral. By sorting various kinds of consent through social and legal doctrine, we delineate empirical and technical questions to meet consent challenges faced in major application domains and robotic roles. Attention to consent could show, for example, how extraordinary, norm-violating actions can be justified by agents and accepted by those around them. We argue that operationalizing ideas from legal scholarship can better guide how robotic systems might cultivate and sustain proper forms of consent.

References

  1. 1891. O’brien v. Cunard Steam Ship Co. In 28 N.E. 266.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 1980. Commonwealth v. Appleby. In 402 N.E.2d 1051. Mass: Supreme Judicial Court.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2012. Commonwealth v. Carey. In 463 Mass. 378. Mass: Supreme Judicial Court.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Henny Admoni and Brian Scassellati. 2017. Social eye gaze in human-robot interaction: A review. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 6, 1 (2017), 25--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Thomas Arnold and Matthias Scheutz. 2017. Beyond moral dilemmas: Exploring the ethical landscape in hri. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’17). IEEE, 445--452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Thomas Arnold and Matthias Scheutz. 2018a. Observing robot touch in context: How does touch and attitude affect perception of a robot’s social qualities? In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Thomas Arnold and Matthias Scheutz. 2018b. Observing robot touch in context: How does touch and attitude affect perceptions of a robot’s social qualities? In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 352--360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Peter M. Asaro. 2007. Robots and responsibility from a legal perspective. In Proceedings of the IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation (ICRA'07). http://www.peterasaro.org/writing/ASARO%20Legal%20Perspective.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Siddhartha Banerjee and Sonia Chernova. 2017. Temporal models for robot classification of human interruptibility. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1350--1359. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Cynthia Breazeal, Kerstin Dautenhahn, and Takayuki Kanda. 2016. Social robotics. In Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer, 1935--1972.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Gordon Briggs and Matthias Scheutz. 2016. The pragmatic social robot: Toward socially-sensitive utterance generation in human-robot interactions. In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium Series on Artificial Intelligence for Human-Robot Interaction (AI-HRI’16). 12--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon Michael Briggs and Matthias Scheutz. 2013. A hybrid architectural approach to understanding and appropriately generating indirect speech acts. In Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’13). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ryan Calo. 2010. Robots and privacy. In Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, Patrick Lin, George Bekey, and Keith Abney (eds.).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Tiffany L. Chen, Chih-Hung Aaron King, Andrea L. Thomaz, and Charles C. Kemp. 2014. An investigation of responses to robot-initiated touch in a nursing context. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6, 1 (2014), 141--161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kate Darling. 2016. Extending legal protection to social robots: The effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects. In Robot Law, M. Froomkin, R. Calo, and I. Kerr (Eds.). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Maartje M. A. de Graaf. 2016. An ethical evaluation of human--robot relationships. Int. Soc. Robot. 8, 4 (2016), 589--598.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Leah Fessler. 2018. Amazon’s Alexa is now a feminist, and she’s sorry if that upsets you. Retrieved from https://qz.com/work/1180607/amazons-alexa-is-now-a-feminist-and-shes-sorry-if-that-upsets-you/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Stephen M. Fiore, Travis J. Wiltshire, Emilio J. C. Lobato, Florian G. Jentsch, Wesley H. Huang, and Benjamin Axelrod. 2013. Toward understanding social cues and signals in human--robot interaction: Effects of robot gaze and proxemic behavior. Front. Psychol. 4 (2013), 859.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Lily Frank and Sven Nyholm. 2017. Robot sex and consent: Is consent to sex between a robot and a human conceivable, possible, and desirable? Artif. Intell. Law 25, 3 (2017), 305--323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. John Gardner. 2015. The many faces of the reasonable person. Law Quart. Rev. 131, Oct. (Oct. 2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Sinziana Gutiu. 2012. Sex robots and roboticization of consent. In Proceedings of the We Robot 2012 Conference, Vol. 15. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Chris Haynes, Michael Luck, Peter McBurney, Samhar Mahmoud, Tomáš Vítek, and Simon Miles. 2017. Engineering the emergence of norms: A review. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 32 (2017), e18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Guy Hoffman, Jodi Forlizzi, Shahar Ayal, Aaron Steinfeld, John Antanitis, Guy Hochman, Eric Hochendoner, and Justin Finkenaur. 2015. Robot presence and human honesty: Experimental evidence. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 181--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Heidi M. Hurd. 1996. The moral magic of consent. Legal Theory 2, 2 (1996), 121--146.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Marcello Ienca, Fabrice Jotterand, Constantin Vică, and Bernice Elger. 2016. Social and assistive robotics in dementia care: Ethical recommendations for research and practice. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 8, 4 (2016), 565--573.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Malte F. Jung, Nikolas Martelaro, and Pamela J. Hinds. 2015. Using robots to moderate team conflict: The case of repairing violations. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 229--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Peter H. Kahn Jr, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Brian T. Gill, Solace Shen, Heather E. Gary, and Jolina H. Ruckert. 2015. Will people keep the secret of a humanoid robot?: Psychological intimacy in HRI. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 173--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Kheng Lee Koay, Dag Sverre Syrdal, Mohammadreza Ashgari-Oskoei, Michael L. Walters, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2014. Social roles and baseline proxemic preferences for a domestic service robot. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6, 4 (2014), 469--488.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Bertram F. Malle and Matthias Scheutz. 2015. When will people regard robots as morally competent social partners? In Proceedings of the 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’15). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 486--491.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ross Mead and Maja J. Mataric. 2015. Robots have needs too: People adapt their proxemic preferences to improve autonomous robot recognition of human social signals. New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction 100 (2015), 100--107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Ross Mead and Maja J. Matarić. 2017. Autonomous human--robot proxemics: Socially aware navigation based on interaction potential. Autonom. Robots 41, 5 (2017), 1189--1201. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jonathan Mumm and Bilge Mutlu. 2011. Human-robot proxemics: Physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 331--338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Oskar Palinko, Kohei Ogawa, Yuichiro Yoshikawa, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2018. How should a robot interrupt a conversation between multiple humans. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, 149--159.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Jennifer Piatt, Shinichi Nagata, Selma Šabanović, Wan-Ling Cheng, Casey Bennett, MS Hee Rin Lee, David Hakken, et al. 2017. Companionship with a robot? Therapists’ perspectives on socially assistive robots as therapeutic interventions in community mental health for older adults. Am. J. Recreat. Ther. 15, 4 (2017), 29--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Laurel D. Riek and Peter Robinson. 2011. Challenges and opportunities in building socially intelligent machines {social sciences}. IEEE Sign. Process. Mag. 28, 3 (2011), 146--149.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Vasanth Sarathy and Matthias Scheutz. 2016. A logic-based computational framework for inferring cognitive affordances. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Dev. Syst. 8, 3 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Vasanth Sarathy, Matthias Scheutz, Joseph Austerweil, Yoed Kenett, Mowafak Allaham, and Bertram Malle. 2017b. Mental representations and computational modeling of context-specific human norm systems. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Vasanth Sarathy, Matthias Scheutz, and Bertram Malle. 2017a. Learning behavioral norms in uncertain and changing contexts. In Proceedings of the 2017 8th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom’17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Aziez Sardar, Michiel Joosse, Astrid Weiss, and Vanessa Evers. 2012. Don’t stand so close to me: Users’ attitudinal and behavioral responses to personal space invasion by robots. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 229--230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Matthias Scheutz. 2011. 13 the inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional bonds between humans and social robots. Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics (2011), 205.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Matthias Scheutz. 2017. The case for explicit ethical agents. AI Mag. 38, 4 (2017), 57--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Matthias Scheutz and Thomas Arnold. 2016. Are we ready for sex robots? In Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Matthias Scheutz and Thomas Arnold. 2017. Intimacy, bonding, and sex robots: Examining Empirical Results and Exploring Ethical Ramifications. In Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications, John Danaher and Neil McArthur (Eds.). MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Kenneth Simons. 2017. Actual, apparent and hypothetical consent in tort law. Retrieved from https://www.law.uci.edu/centers/clp/images-pdfs/simons-actual-apparent-and-hypothetical-consent.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Kenneth W. Simons. 1987. Assumption of risk and consent in the law of torts: A theory of full preference. BUL Rev. 67, 2 (1987), 213--288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Kenneth W. Simons. 2006. A restatement (third) of intentional torts. Ariz. L. Rev. 48, 4 (2006), 1061--1102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Christopher John Stanton and Catherine J. Stevens. 2017. Don’t stare at me: The impact of a humanoid robot’s gaze upon trust during a cooperative human--robot visual task. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 9, 5 (2017), 745--753.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Aaron Steinfeld, Terrence Fong, David Kaber, Michael Lewis, Jean Scholtz, Alan Schultz, and Michael Goodrich. 2006. Common metrics for human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 33--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Megan Strait, Cody Canning, and Matthias Scheutz. 2014. Let me tell you! investigating the effects of robot communication strategies in advice-giving situations based on robot appearance, interaction modality and distance. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 479--486. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Ja-Young Sung, Lan Guo, Rebecca E. Grinter, and Henrik I. Christensen. 2007. “My Roomba is Rambo”: Intimate home appliances. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. Springer, 145--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Dag Sverre Syrdal, Kheng Lee Koay, Michael L. Walters, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2007. A personalized robot companion?-The role of individual differences on spatial preferences in HRI scenarios. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human interactive Communication (RO-MAN’07). IEEE, 1143--1148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. X. Tan, J. Brawer, and B. Scassellati. 2019. That’s mine! Learning ownership relations and norms for robots. In Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Andrea Thomaz, Guy Hoffman, Maya Cakmak, et al. 2016. Computational human-robot interaction. Found. Trends Robot. 4, 2--3 (2016), 105--223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Cristen Torrey, Susan Fussell, and Sara Kiesler. 2013. How a robot should give advice. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, 275--282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Jan B. F. Van Erp and Alexander Toet. 2013. How to touch humans: Guidelines for social agents and robots that can touch. In Proceedings of the Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII’13). IEEE, 780--785. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Michael L. Walters, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Sarah N. Woods, and Kheng Lee Koay. 2007. Robotic etiquette: Results from user studies involving a fetch and carry task. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 317--324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Ricarda Wullenkord, Marlena R. Fraune, Friederike Eyssel, and Selma Šabanović. 2016. Getting in touch: How imagined, actual, and physical contact affect evaluations of robots. In Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’16). IEEE, 980--985.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. When Exceptions Are the Norm: Exploring the Role of Consent in HRI

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
      ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction  Volume 8, Issue 3
      September 2019
      128 pages
      EISSN:2573-9522
      DOI:10.1145/3349339
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 July 2019
      • Accepted: 1 March 2019
      • Received: 1 December 2018
      Published in thri Volume 8, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format