Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Digitalisierung im Vertrieb – Definitionen, Nutzen und Herausforderungen Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2023 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Dienstleistungsroboter im Handel – Einsatzmöglichkeiten und verantwortungsbewusster Einsatz

verfasst von : Ruth Stock-Homburg, Merlind Knof, Jérôme Kirchhoff, Judith S. Heinisch, Andreas Ebert, Philip Busch, Klaus David, Janine Wendt, Indra Spiecker gen. Döhmann, Oskar von Stryk, Martin Hannig

Erschienen in: Digitalisierung im Vertrieb

Verlag: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Zusammenfassung

Anthropomorphe Dienstleistungsroboter gewinnen immer mehr an Popularität. Je leistungsfähiger sie werden und je stärker sie in unserem Alltag integriert sind, desto wichtiger wird die verantwortungsbewusste Gestaltung der Mensch-Roboter-Interaktion (MRI). Hierbei sind Menschenwürde, Transparenz, Privatsphäre, Datenschutz und Compliance im verantwortungsbewussten Einsatz anthropomorpher Dienstleistungsroboter von zentraler Bedeutung. Dieser Beitrag nennt Tätigkeiten von Dienstleistungsrobotern im Handel und bietet einen interdisziplinären Überblick über den aktuellen Forschungsstand zur verantwortungsbewussten Gestaltung der MRI unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der vier Disziplinen Ethik, Recht, Psychologie und Technik. Zudem wird ein interdisziplinärer Bezugsrahmen für die Gestaltung einer verantwortungsbewussten MRI mit anthropomorphen Dienstleitungsrobotern entwickelt und präsentiert. Abschließend werden wissenschaftliche Implikationen abgeleitet und weitere Forschungsfelder hinsichtlich einer verantwortungsbewussten Gestaltung der MRI mit anthropomorphen Dienstleistungsrobotern formuliert.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Wie kann SalesTech in Marketing und Vertrieb helfen?
Nächstes Kapitel Digitalisierung von Messen
Fußnoten
1
Befragte: n = 475 private NutzerInnen via Amazon Mechanical Turk; Alter: 22 % zwischen 21 und 30 Jahre, 39 % zwischen 31 und 40 Jahre, 18 % zwischen 41 und 50 Jahre, 21 % über 50 Jahre; Geschlecht: 57 % männlich, 42 % weiblich, 1 % divers.
 
2
Befragte: n = 252 private NutzerInnen via Amazon Mechanical Turk; Alter: 9 % jünger als 20 Jahre, 34 % zwischen 21 und 30 Jahre, 30 % zwischen 31 und 40 Jahre, 17 % zwischen 41 und 50 Jahre, 10 % über 50 Jahre; Geschlecht: 70 % männlich, 29 % weiblich, 1 % divers.
 
3
Die Umfrage mit Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) war für OnlinearbeiterInnen mit einer historischen Akzeptanzrate von über 95 % und mit einem Wohnsitz in den USA sichtbar. Dadurch konnte sichergestellt werden, dass nur solche OnlinearbeiterInnen an der Studie teilnahmen, die in der Vergangenheit ihre Aufgaben zu mindestens 95 % sorgfältig durchgeführt hatten. In einem Between-Subject-Design haben wir vier verschiedene Szenarien miteinander verglichen: 1) Handel, 2) Gesundheitswesen, 3) Reisebüro und 4) Restaurant. Nach Bereinigung der Daten konnten wir Daten von 392 US-BürgerInnen auswerten (60 % Männer, 39 % Frauen, 1 % divers, Durchschnittsalter = 40 Jahre, Standardabweichung = 13). Der primäre berufliche Status war angestellt (67 %), gefolgt von selbstständig (10 %), nichterwerbstätig (8 %) und sonstige (14 %).
 
Literatur
Abbott, R. (2020). The reasonable robot: artificial intelligence and the law. Cambridge Law Review.
Abney, K. (2012). Robotics, ethical theory, and metaethics: a guide for the perplexed. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A. Bekey (Hrsg.), IEEE Xplore digital library. Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics (S. 35–52). The MIT Press.
Admoni, H., Weng, T., Hayes, B., & Scassellati, B. (2016), Robot nonverbal behavior improves task performance in difficult collaborations. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 7–10 March 2016.
Ahmad, M., Mubin, O., & Orlando, J. (2017). A systematic review of adaptivity in human-robot interaction. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1(3), 14.
Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L. (2020). Machine ethics: creating an ethical intelligent agent. In P. Asaro & W. Wallbach (Hrsg.), Machine ethics and robot ethics (S. 237–248). Routledge.
Avots, E., Sapiński, T., Bachmann, M., & Kamińska, D. (2019). Audiovisual emotion recognition in wild. Machine Vision and Applications, 30(5), 975–985.
Barfield, W. (2018). Liability for autonomous and artificially intelligent Robots. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 9(1), 193–203.
Barnoviciu, E., Ghenescu, V., Carata, S.‑V., Ghenescu, M., Mihaescu, R., & Chindea, M. (2019), GDPR Compliance in video surveillance and video processing application. In 2019 International Conference on Speech Technology and Human-Computer Dialogue (SpeD), Timisoara, Romania, 10–12 October 2019.
Baxter, P., Kennedy, J., Senft, E., Lemaignan, S., & Belpaeme, T. (2016), From characterising three years of HRI to methodology and reporting recommendations. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 7–10 March 2016.
Belk, R. (2020). Ethical issues in service robotics and artificial intelligence. The Service Industries Journal, 41(13–14), 1–17.
Bethel, C. L., & Murphy, R. R. (2010). Review of human studies methods in HRI and recommendations. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 347–359.
Bethel, C. L., Salomon, K., Murphy, R. R., & Burke, J. L. (2007), Survey of psychophysiology measurements applied to human-robot interaction. In RO-MAN 2007-The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 26–29 August 2007.
Bhaskara, A., Skinner, M., & Loft, S. (2020). Agent transparency: a review of current theory and evidence. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 50(3), 215–224.
Bostrom, N., & Yudkowsky, E. (2014). The ethics of artificial intelligence. In K. Frankish & W. M. Ramsey (Hrsg.), The cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence (Bd. 1, S. 316–334). Cambridge University Press.
Bringsjord, S., & Taylor, J. (2012). Introducing divine-command approach to robot ethics. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A. Bekey (Hrsg.), IEEE Xplore digital library. Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics (S. 85–108). The MIT Press.
Bütepage, J., Kjellström, H., & Kragic, D. (2018). Anticipating many futures: online human motion prediction and generation for human-robot interaction. In 2018 IEEE international Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). Symposium conducted at the meeting of IEEE, 21–25 May 2018.
Chen, J. Y., Procci, K., Boyce, M., Wright, J., Garcia, A., & Barnes, M. (2014). Situation awareness-based agent transparency (ARL-TR-6905). Aberdeen Proving Ground (MD): Army Research Laboratory (US).
Coyne, A. K., Murtagh, A., & McGinn, C. (2020), Using the geneva emotion wheel to measure perceived affect in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 23–26 March 2020.
Crnkovic, G. D., & Çürüklü, B. (2012). Robots: ethical by design. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(1), 61–71.
Damiano, L., & Dumouchel, P. (2018). Anthropomorphism in human-robot co-evolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 468.
de Jong, C., Kühne, R., Peter, J., van Straten, C. L., & Barco, A. (2020). Intentional acceptance of social robots: development and validation of a self-report measure for children. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 139, 102426.
DeBaets, A. M. (2014). Can a robot pursue the good? Exploring artificial moral agency. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 24(3), 76–86.
Do, L.-N., Yang, H.-J., Nguyen, H.-D., Kim, S.-H., Lee, G.-S., & Na, I.-S. (2021). Deep neural network-based fusion model for emotion recognition using visual data. The Journal of Supercomputing, 77(3), 10773–10790.
Dreier, T., & Spiecker gen. Döhmann, I. (2012), Legal Aspects of Service Robotics. Poiesis & Praxis, 9(3-4), 201–217.
Du, S., & Xie, C. (2021). Paradoxes of artificial intelligence in consumer markets: ethical challenges and opportunities. Journal of Business Research, 129, 961–974.
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.
Erdélyi, O. J., & Erdélyi, G. (2021). The AI liability puzzle and a fund-based work-around. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 70, 1309–1334.
European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a regulation of the european parliament and of the council: laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain union legislative acts.
Expert Group on Liability and New Technologies – New Technologies Formation. (2019). Liability for artificial intelligence and other emerging digital technologies. European Commission.
Felzmann, H., Fosch-Villaronga, E., Lutz, C., & Tamo-Larrieux, A. (2019). Robots and transparency: the multiple dimensions of transparency in the context of robot technologies. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 26(2), 71–78.
Ferretti, V., & Papaleo, F. (2019). Understanding others: emotion recognition in humans and other animals. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 18(1), e12544.
Filntisis, P. P., Efthymiou, N., Potamianos, G., & Maragos, P. (2020), Emotion understanding in videos through body, context, and visual-semantic embedding loss. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Symposium conducted at the meeting of Springer, 23–28 August 2020.
Fink, J. (2012), Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interaction. In International Conference on Social Robotics. Symposium conducted at the meeting of Springer, 29–31 October 2012.
Fischer, K. (2018), When transparent does not mean explainable. In Papers of HRI Workshop on Explainable Robotic Systems, Chicago, 5–8 March 2018.
Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. W. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14(3), 349–379.
Fong, T., Thorpe, C., & Baur, C. (2003). Collaboration, Dialogue, Human-Robot Interaction. In R. A. Jarvis & A. Zelinsky (Hrsg.), Robotics Research (S. 255–266). Springer.
Forlizzi, J., & DiSalvo, C. (2006), Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction, 2–3 March 2006.
Fosch-Villaronga, E., Felzmann, H., Mahler, T., & Ramos Montero, M. (2018), Cloud services for robotic nurses? Assessing legal and ethical issues in the use of cloud services for healthcare robots. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1–5 October 2018.
Fosch-Villaronga, E., & Millard, C. (2018), Cloud Robotics Law and Regulation. Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper, (295).
Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. G. (2019). Value sensitive design: shaping technology with moral imagination. The MIT Press.
Fussell, S. R., Kiesler, S., Setlock, L. D., & Yew, V. (2008). How people anthropomorphize robots. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Human robot interaction – HRI ’08, 12–15 March 2008.
Fusté-Forné, F., & Jamal, T. (2021). Co-creating new directions for service robots in hospitality and tourism. Tourism and Hospitality, 2(1), 43–61.
Gambino, A., Fox, J., & Ratan, R. A. (2020). Building a stronger CASA: extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication, 1(1), 71–86.
Gieselmann, C., & Gremmer, E. (2018), Wie Digitale Innovationen den Stationären Kaufprozess Rrevolutionieren – Mögliche Antworten auf den Online-Trend. In F. Keuper, M. Schomann, & L. I. Sikora (Hrsg.), Homo Connectus (S. 431–452). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-658-19133-7_​18.
Greene, S., Thapliyal, H., & Caban-Holt, A. (2016). A survey of affective computing for stress detection: evaluating technologies in stress detection for better health. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 5(4), 44–56.
Gunes, H., & Pantic, M. (2010). Automatic, dimensional and continuous emotion recognition. International Journal of Synthetic Emotions, 1(1), 68–99.
Haidegger, T., Barreto, M., Gonçalves, P., Habib, M. K., Ragavan, S. K. V., Li, H., Vaccarella, A., Perrone, R., & Prestes, E. (2013). Applied ontologies and standards for service robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61(11), 1215–1223.
Ho, C.-C., & MacDorman, K. F. (2017). Measuring the uncanny valley effect. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(1), 129–139.
Hoffmann, T., & Prause, G. (2018). On the regulatory framework for last-mile Robots. Machines, 6(3), 33.
Holland, J., Kingston, L., McCarthy, C., Armstrong, E., O’Dwyer, P., Merz, F., & McConnell, M. (2021). Service robots in the healthcare sector. Robotics, 10(1), 47.
Homburg, N. (2018), How to include humanoid robots into experimental research: a multi-step approach. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hilton Waikoloa Village, 3–6 January 2018.
Hubbard, F. P. (2014). Sophisticated robots: balancing liability, regulation, and innovation. Florida Law Review, 66(5), 1803–1872.
Hustinx, P. (2014). The reform of EU data protection: towards more effective and more consistent data protection across the EU: 4. In N. Witzleb, D. Lindsay, M. Paterson, & S. Rodrick (Hrsg.), Emerging Challenges in Privacy Law (S. 62–72). Cambridge University Press.
The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous, & Intelligent Systems (2019), Ethically aligned design – a vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems, 1–294.
IEEE Standards Association (2020, Juni). IEEE draft standard for transparency of autonomous systems. IEEE P7001/D1, 1–70.
Ivanov, S., & Webster, C. (2019). What should robots do? A comparative analysis of industry professionals, educators and tourists. In J. Personen & J. Neidhardt (Hrsg.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2019: Proceedings of the International Conference (S. 249–262). Springer.
Ivanov, S., Webster, C., & Berezina, K. (2017). Adoption of robots and service automation by tourism and hospitality companies. Revista Turismo & Desenvolvimento, 27(28), 1501–1517.
Ivanov, S., Webster, C., & Seyyedi, P. (2018). Consumers’ attitudes towards the introduction of robots in accommodation establishments. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 66(3), 302–317.
Jarrassé, N., Paik, J., Pasqui, V., & Morel, G. (2008), How can human motion prediction increase transparency? In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposium conducted at the meeting of IEEE, 19–23 May 2008.
Kagawa, R., Nobuto, M., Someya, Y., Yoshida, R., & Sugaya, M. (2018). Affect evaluation of biological information approached by a nursing/care robot. In Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Conference on Robot IoT System Development and Platform, Phuket, 30 October–2 November 2018.
Kidd, C. D., & Breazeal, C. (2005). Human-robot interaction experiments: lessons learned. In Proceeding of AISB, University of Hertfordshire, 12–15 April 2005.
Kim, T., & Hinds, P. (2006). Who should I blame? Effects of autonomy and transparency on attributions in human-robot interaction. In ROMAN 2006-The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 6–8 September 2006.
Kim, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2012). Anthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless? Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 241–250.
Knof, M., Heinisch, J., Kirchhoff, J., Rawal, N., David, K., Stryk, O. von, & Stock-Homburg, R. (2022), Implications from responsible human-robot interaction with anthropomorphic service robots for design science. In Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii international conference on system sciences.
Kreibig, S. D. (2010). Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: a review. Biological Psychology, 84(3), 394–421.
Kulic, D., & Croft, E. (2005), Anxiety detection during human-robot interaction. In 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2–6 August 2005.
Kuner, C., Bygrave, L. A., Docksey, C., & Drechsler, L. (2020). The EU general data protection regulation (GDPR): a commentary. Oxford University Press.
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80.
Levenson, R. W. (1988). Emotion and the autonomic nervous system: a prospectus for research on autonomic specificity. In H. L. Wagner (Hrsg.), Social psychophysiology and emotion: theory and clinical applications (S. 17–42). Wiley.
Leyzberg, D., Spaulding, S., Toneva, M., & Scassellati, B. (2012), The physical presence of a robot tutor increases cognitive learning gains. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1–4 August 2012.
Li, J., Ju, W., & Nass, C. (2015), Observer perception of dominance and mirroring behavior in human-robot relationships. In 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2–5 March 2015.
Lior, A. (2020). AI entities as AI agents: artificial intelligence liability and the AI respondeat superior analogy. Mitchell Hamline Law Review, 46(5), 1043–1102.
Liu, C., Rani, P., & Sarkar, N. (2006). Human-robot interaction using affective cues. In ROMAN 2006-The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, University of Hertfordshire, 6–8 September 2006.
Loznen, S., Bolintineanu, C., & Swart, J. (2017). Electrical Product Compliance and Safety Engineering. Norwood: Artech House.
Lutz, C., Schöttler, M., & Hoffmann, C. P. (2019). The privacy implications of social robots: scoping review and expert interviews. Mobile Media & Communication, 7(3), 412–434.
Lutz, C., & Tamò, A. (2015), RoboCode-ethicists: privacy-friendly robots, an ethical responsibility of engineers? In Proceedings of the ACM Web Science Conference, 1 July 2015.
Lutz, C., & Tamó-Larrieux, A. (2020). The robot privacy paradox: understanding how privacy concerns shape intentions to use social robots. Human-Machine Communication Journal, 1(1), 87–111.
Lynskey, O. (2014). Deconstructing data protection: the ‘Added-Value’ of a right to data protection in the EU legal order. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 63(4), 569–597.
Lyons, J. (2013). Being Transparent about Transparency: A Model for Human-Robot Interaction (S. 13–17). AAAI Spring Symposium Series.
Lyons, J. B., Sadler, G. G., Koltai, K., Battiste, H., Ho, N. T., Hoffmann, L. C., Smith, D., Johnson, W., & Shively, R. (2017). Shaping trust through transparent design: theoretical and experimental guidelines. In Advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems (S. 127–136). Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
Malle, B. F. (2016). Integrating robot ethics and machine morality: the study and design of moral competence in robots. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4), 243–256.
Mara, M., & Appel, M. (2015a). Effects of lateral head tilt on user perceptions of humanoid and android robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 326–334.
Mara, M., & Appel, M. (2015b). Science fiction reduces the eeriness of android robots: a field experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 156–162.
Matsuzaki, H., & Lindemann, G. (2016). The autonomy-safety-paradox of service robotics in europe and japan: a comparative analysis. AI & Society, 31(4), 501–517.
Mende, M., Scott, M. L., van Doorn, J., Grewal, D., & Shanks, I. (2019). Service robots rising: how humanoid robots influence service experiences and elicit compensatory consumer responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 535–556.
Merkle, M. (2019). Customer responses to service robots‐comparing human-robot interaction with human-human interaction. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 8–11 January 2019.
Mohammad, Y., & Nishida, T. (2010). Using physiological signals to detect natural interactive behavior. Applied Intelligence, 33(1), 79–92.
Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the Field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100.
Murphy, R, R., & Schreckenghost, D. (2013). Survey of metrics for human-robot interaction. In 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 3–6 March 2013.
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.
Nesset, B., Robb, D. A., Lopes, J., & Hastie, H. (2021). Transparency in HRI: trust and decision making in the face of robot errors. In Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 9–11 March 2021.
Niemueller, T., Lakemeyer, G., & Srinivasa, S. S. (2012). A generic robot database and its application in fault analysis and performance evaluation. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 7–12 October 2012.
Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100–126.
Ollander, S., Godin, C., Campagne, A., & Charbonnier, S. (2016). A comparison of wearable and stationary sensors for stress detection. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 9–12 October 2016.
Oremus, W. (2016). Terrifyingly convenient: AI assistants can give you the news, order you a pizza, and tell you a joke. All you have to do is trust them—completely. Slate.
Park, E., Kim, K. J., & Del Pobil, A. P. (2011). The effects of robot’s body gesture and gender in human-robot interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 91–96.
Parthemore, J., & Whitby, B. (2013). What makes any agent a moral agent? Reflections on machine consciousness and moral agency. International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 5(02), 105–129.
Phillips, E., Zhao, X., Ullman, D., & Malle, B. F. (2018). What is human-like? decomposing robots’ human-like appearance using the anthropomorphic RoBOT (ABOT) database. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 5–8 March 2018.
Picard, R., Vyzas, E., & Healey, J. (2001). Toward machine emotional intelligence: analysis of affective physiological state. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 23(10), 1175–1191.
Rajabiyazdi, F., & Jamieson, G. A. (2020). A review of transparency (seeing-into) models. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 11–14 October 2020.
Rani, P., & Sarkar, N. (2005a). Making robots emotion-sensitive – preliminary experiments and results. In ROMAN 2005a. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 13–15 August 2005a.
Rani, P., & Sarkar, N. (2005b). Operator engagement detection and robot behavior adaptation in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2005b IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 18–22 April 2005b.
Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1995). BDI agents: from theory to practice. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems, 12–14 June 1995.
Rawal, N., & Stock-Homburg, R. M. (2021). Facial emotion expressions in human-robot interaction: a survey. International Journal of Social Robotics. In Press.
Rázuri, J. G., Sundgren, D., Rahmani, R., Moran, A., Bonet, I., & Larsson, A. (2015). Speech emotion recognition in emotional feedback for human-robot interaction. International Journal of Advanced Research in Artificial Intelligence, 4(2), 20–27.
Riva, G., Banos, R. M., Botella, C., Wiederhold, B. K., & Gaggioli, A. (2012). Positive technology: using interactive technologies to promote positive functioning. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(2), 69–77.
Rueben, M., Aroyo, A., Lutz, C., Schmolz, J., van Cleynenbreugel, P., Corti, A., Agrawal, S., & Smart, W. (2018). Themes and research directions in privacy-sensitive robotics. In 2018 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts, 27–29 September 2018.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178.
Salem, M., Eyssel, F., Rohlfing, K., Kopp, S., & Joublin, F. (2013). To err is human(-like): effects of robot gesture on perceived anthropomorphism and likability. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(3), 313–323.
Sanders, T. L., Wixon, T., Schafer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., & Hancock, P. A. (2014). The influence of modality and transparency on trust in human-robot interaction. In 2014 IEEE International Inter-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support, 3–6 March 2014.
Savela, N., Turja, T., & Oksanen, A. (2018). Social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(4), 493–502.
Schaefer, K. E. (2016). Measuring Trust in Human Robot Interactions: Development of the “Trust Perception Scale-HRI”: 10. Robust Intelligence and Trust in Autonomous Systems (S. 191–218). Springer.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44(4), 695–729.
Schwartz, P. M. (2019). Global data privacy: the EU way. New York University Law Review, 94(1), 771–818.
Schweitzer, F., Belk, R., Jordan, W., & Ortner, M. (2019). Servant, friend or master? The relationships users build with voice-controlled smart devices. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(7–8), 693–715.
Scriven, M. (1981). Evaluation thesaurus. Sage.
Seyama, J., & Nagayama, R. S. (2007). The uncanny valley: effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 16(4), 337–351.
Shu, L., Xie, J., Yang, M., Li, Z [Ziyi], Li, Z [Zhenqi], Liao, D., Xu, X., & Yang, X. (2018), A Review of Emotion Recognition Using Physiological Signals. Sensors, 18(7), 2074. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​s18072074.
Šidlauskas, A. (2019), Video Surveillance and the GDPR. In Social Transformations in Contemporary Society 2019 (7), 55–65.
Smarr, C.‑A., Prakash, A., Beer, J. M., Mitzner, T. L., Kemp, C. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2012). Older adults’ preferences for and acceptance of robot assistance for everyday living tasks. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 22–26 October 2012.
Steinfeld, A., Fong, T., Kaber, D., Lewis, M., Scholtz, J., Schultz, A., & Goodrich, M. (2006). Common Metrics for Human-Robot Interaction. In M. A. Goodrich, A. C. Schultz, & D. J. Bruemmer (Hrsg.), Proceeding of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction – HRI '06 (S. 33–40). ACM Press, 2–3 March 2006. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​1121241.​1121249.
Stiefelhagen, R., Fugen, C., Gieselmann, R., Holzapfel, H., Nickel, K., & Waibel, A. (2004). Natural human-robot interaction using speech, head pose and gestures. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566) (Bd. 3, S. 2422–2427). IEEE, 28 September–2 October 2004. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​IROS.​2004.​1389771.
Stock, R., & Nguyen, M. A. (2019a), Robotic psychology. What do We know about human-robot interaction and what do we still need to learn? In T. Bui (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 8–11 January 2019a. https://​doi.​org/​10.​24251/​HICSS.​2019a.​234.
Stock, R., & Nguyen, M. A. (2019b). Robotic psychology. What do we know about human-robot interaction and what do we still need to learn? In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 8–11 January 2019b.
Stock, R. M., & Merkle, M. (2017). A service robot acceptance model: user acceptance of humanoid robots during service encounters. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (S. 339–344). IEEE, 13–17 March 2017. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​PERCOMW.​2017.​7917585.
Stock-Homburg, R., & Hannig, M. (2020), Is there a privacy paradox in the workplace? In Proceedings of the Forty-First International Conference on Information Systems, 13–16 December 2020.
Stock-Homburg, R., Kirchhoff, J., Heinisch, J., Ebert, A., Busch, P., Rawal, N., David, K., Wendt, J., Spiecker gen. Döhmann, I., Stryk, O. von, Hannig, M., & Knof, M. (2022), Responsible human-robot interaction with anthropomorphic service robots: state of the art of an interdisciplinary research challenge. In Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii international Conference on System Sciences.
Suzuki, S., Anuardi, MNAM., Sripian, P., Matsuhira, N., & Sugaya, M. (2020), Multi-user robot impression with a virtual agent and features modification according to real-time emotion from physiological signals. In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 31 August–4 September 2020. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​RO-MAN47096.​2020.​9223585.
Thomas, D. (2010). Middleware for efficient programming of autonomous mobile robots. Dissertation. Technische Universität Darmstadt.
Tiberio, L., Cesta, A., & Olivetti Belardinelli, M. (2013). Psychophysiological methods to evaluate user’s response in human robot interaction: a review and feasibility study. Robotics, 2(2), 92–121.
Van de Perre, G., Van Damme, M., Lefeber, D., & Vanderborght, B. (2015). Development of a generic method to generate upper-body emotional expressions for different social robots. Advanced Robotics, 29(9), 597–609.
van den Hoven van Genderen, R. (2017). Privacy and data protection in the age of pervasive technologies in AI and robotics. European Data Protection Law Review, 3(3), 338–352.
Vasylkovskyi, V., Guerreiro, S., & Sequeira, J. S. (2020), BlockRobot: Increasing Privacy in Human Robot Interaction by Using Blockchain. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain, 2–6 November 2020.
Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology: understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press.
Verbeek, P.‑P. (2014). Some misunderstandings about the moral significance of technology. In P. Kroes & P.-P. Verbeek (Hrsg.), Philosophy of engineering and technology. The moral status of technical artefacts, Bd. 17 (S. 75–88). Springer Netherlands. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-94-007-7914-3_​5.
Veruggio, G., & Operto, F. (2007). The debate on roboethics. Philosophy & Engineering, 23.
Wagner, G. (2019). Robot Liability. In S. Lohsse, R. Schulze, & D. Staudenmeyer (Hrsg.), Liability for artificial intelligence and the internet of things (S. 27–62). Nomos.
Webster, C., & Ivanov, S. (2020). Robots in travel, tourism and hospitality: key findings from a global study. Zangador.
Weller, A. (2017). Transparency: motivations and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2017 ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning, 10 August 2017.
Westin, A. F. (1968). Privacy and freedom. Atheneum.
Winfield, A. F. T., & Jirotka, M. (2017). The case for an ethical black box. In Annual Conference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems, 19–21 July 2017.
Wortham, R. H., Theodorou, A., & Bryson, J. J. (2016). What does the robot think? Transparency as a fundamental design requirement for intelligent systems. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Ethics for Artificial Intelligence, 9 July 2016.
Wright, J. L., Chen, J. Y. C., & Lakhmani, S. G. (2020). Agent transparency and reliability in human-robot interaction: the influence on user confidence and perceived reliability. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 50(3), 254–263.
Yoon, S., Byun, S., & Jung, K. (2018). Multimodal speech emotion recognition using audio and text. In 2018 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop. Symposium conducted at the meeting of IEEE, 18–21 December 2018.
Metadaten
Titel
Dienstleistungsroboter im Handel – Einsatzmöglichkeiten und verantwortungsbewusster Einsatz
verfasst von
Ruth Stock-Homburg
Merlind Knof
Jérôme Kirchhoff
Judith S. Heinisch
Andreas Ebert
Philip Busch
Klaus David
Janine Wendt
Indra Spiecker gen. Döhmann
Oskar von Stryk
Martin Hannig
Copyright-Jahr
2023
Buch
Digitalisierung im Vertrieb

Print ISBN: 978-3-658-38432-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-658-38433-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2023

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38433-3_21