1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interaction Studies
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Imagining human–robot encounters
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

As social robots enter public spaces, there remains a gap in understanding how people imagine and evaluate their roles as social actors. This study explores the social dynamics of human-robot interaction (HRI) using the Method of Empathy-Based Stories (MEBS). Participants imagined encounters with a robot at a youth center, producing 158 stories that reveal culturally situated reasoning grounded in everyday social expectations. Positive interactions were marked by the robot’s ability to “pass as social”, where adherence to interactional norms enabled smooth exchanges despite technological limitations. In contrast, negative stories exposed failures such as unresponsiveness, rudeness, or lack of social competence, leading to distrust or disappointment. These findings underscore the situated nature of HRI, suggesting that successful interaction depends less on a robot’s “real internal states” and more on its capacity to align with normative expectations of context and practice.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/is.25017.rau
2026-05-27
2026-06-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/is.25017.rau
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/is.25017.rau/is.25017.rau.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/is.25017.rau&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Abendschein, B., Edwards, A., & Edwards, C.
    (2022) Novelty experience in prolonged interaction: A qualitative study of socially isolated college students’ in-home use of a robot companion animal. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, , –. 10.3389/frobt.2022.733078
     https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.733078 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahtinen, A., Chowdhury, A., Ramírez Millan, V., Wu, C.-H., & Menon, G.
    (2023) Co-learning around social robots with school pupils and university students — focus on data privacy considerations. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, HAI ’23, –. 10.1145/3623809.3623816
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3623809.3623816 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alenljung, B., Lindblom, J., Andreasson, R., & Ziemke, T.
    (2017) User experience in social human-robot interaction. International Journal of Ambient Computing and Intelligence, (), –. 10.4018/IJACI.2017040102
     https://doi.org/10.4018/IJACI.2017040102 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alves-Oliveira, P., Budhiraja, T., So, S., Karim, R., Björling, E., & Cakmak, M.
    (2022) Robot-mediated interventions for youth mental health. Design for Health, (), –. 10.1080/24735132.2022.2101825
     https://doi.org/10.1080/24735132.2022.2101825 [Google Scholar]
  5. Annala, J., Mäkinen, M., Svärd, P., Silius, K., & Miilumäki, T.
    (2012) Online community environment promoting engagement in higher education. Studies for the Learning Society, (). 10.2478/v10240‑012‑0007‑0
     https://doi.org/10.2478/v10240-012-0007-0 [Google Scholar]
  6. Axelsson, M., Churamani, N., Çaldır, A., & Gunes, H.
    (2025) Participant perceptions of a robotic coach conducting positive psychology exercises: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, (), :–:. 10.1145/3711937
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3711937 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartneck, C., Belpaeme, T., Eyssel, F., Kanda, T., Keijsers, M., & Šabanović, S.
    (2024) Human-robot interaction: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009424202
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009424202 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bartneck, C., & Forlizzi, J.
    (2004) A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No.04TH8759), –. 10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374827
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374827 [Google Scholar]
  9. Björling, E. A., Rose, E., Davidson, A., Ren, R., & Wong, D.
    (2020) Can we keep him forever? Teens’ engagement and desire for emotional connection with a social robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, (), –. 10.1007/s12369‑019‑00539‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00539-6 [Google Scholar]
  10. Björling, E. A., Rose, E., & Ren, R.
    (2018) Teen-robot interaction: A pilot study of engagement with a low-fidelity prototype. Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, –. 10.1145/3173386.3177068
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3173386.3177068 [Google Scholar]
  11. Björling, E. A., Xu, W. M., Cabrera, M. E., & Cakmak, M.
    (2019) The effect of interaction and design participation on teenagers’ attitudes towards social robots. In2019 28th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN) (pp.–). IEEE. 10.1109/RO‑MAN46459.2019.8956427
     https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956427 [Google Scholar]
  12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V.
    (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, (), –. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar]
  13. (2021) Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/thematic-analysis/book248481
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Breazeal, C., Takanishi, A., & Kobayashi, T.
    (2008) Social robots that interact with people. InB. Siciliano & O. Khatib (Eds.), Springer handbook of robotics (pp.–). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑540‑30301‑5_59
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30301-5_59 [Google Scholar]
  15. Brinck, I., Balkenius, C., & Johansson, B.
    (2016) Making place for social norms in the design of human-robot interaction. InJ. Seibt, M. Nørskov & S. S. Andersen (Eds.) What social robots can and should do (pp.–). IOS Press. 10.3233/978‑1‑61499‑708‑5‑303
     https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-708-5-303 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brunnmayr, K., & Weiss, A.
    (2024) Approaching future robot technologies via speculative role-playing. Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, –. 10.1145/3610978.3640570
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3610978.3640570 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dahl, R. E., Allen, N. B., Wilbrecht, L., & Suleiman, A. B.
    (2018) Importance of investing in adolescence from a developmental science perspective. Nature, (), Article 7693. 10.1038/nature25770
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25770 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dautenhahn, K.
    (2007) Socially intelligent robots: Dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, (), –. 10.1098/rstb.2006.2004
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2004 [Google Scholar]
  19. David, D., Thérouanne, P., & Milhabet, I.
    (2022) The acceptability of social robots: A scoping review of the recent literature. Computers in Human Behavior, , . 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107419
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107419 [Google Scholar]
  20. de Graaf, M. M., Allouch, S. B., & Klamer, T.
    (2015) Sharing a life with Harvey: Exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Computers in Human Behavior, , –. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.030
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.030 [Google Scholar]
  21. Deng, E., Mutlu, B., & Mataric, M. J.
    (2019) Embodiment in socially interactive robots. Foundations and Trends® in Robotics, (), –. 10.1561/2300000056
     https://doi.org/10.1561/2300000056 [Google Scholar]
  22. Derakhshan, A., Teo, T., Saeedy Robat, E., Janebi Enayat, M., & Jahanbakhsh, A. A.
    (2024) Robot-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 00346543241247227. 10.3102/00346543241247227
     https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241247227 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dörrenbächer, J.
    (2022) Performative approaches for robot design. Reconfiguring Human-Robot Interaction workshop, ACM/IEEE HRI2022 Conference. Https://medien.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/reconfig-hri/position-papers/
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Dörrenbächer, J., Ringfort-Felner, R., Neuhaus, R., & Hassenzahl, M.
    (2023) Meaningful Futures with Robots-Designing a New Coexistence (1st ed., Vol.). CRC Press. 10.1201/9781003287445
     https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003287445 [Google Scholar]
  25. Edwards, A., Edwards, C., Westerman, D., & Spence, P. R.
    (2019) Initial expectations, interactions, and beyond with social robots. Computers in Human Behavior, , –. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.042
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.042 [Google Scholar]
  26. Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C.
    (Eds.) (2006) Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction. Berg.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Fenech, R., Baguant, P., & Abdelwahed, I.
    (2020) Robotics and generation Z — apprehension or attachment. International Journal of Business Performance Management, (), . 10.1504/IJBPM.2020.106110
     https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2020.106110 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fitton, D., Little, L., & Bell, B. T.
    (2016) Introduction: HCI reaches adolescence. InL. Little, D. Fitton, B. T. Bell, & N. Toth (Eds.), Perspectives on HCI research with teenagers (pp.–). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑33450‑9_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33450-9_1 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K.
    (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, (), –. 10.1016/S0921‑8890(02)00372‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X [Google Scholar]
  30. Garfinkel, H.
    (1963) A conception of, and experiments with, “trust” as a condition of stable concerted actions. InO. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction: Cognitive approaches (pp.–). Ronald Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H.
    (1970) On formal structures of practical action. InJ. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp.–). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Ghazali, A. S., Ham, J., Barakova, E., & Markopoulos, P.
    (2018) The influence of social cues in persuasive social robots on psychological reactance and compliance. Computers in Human Behavior, , –. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.016 [Google Scholar]
  34. Goffman, E.
    (1955) On face-work. Psychiatry, (), –. 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 [Google Scholar]
  35. Haring, K. S., Watanabe, K., Velonaki, M., Tossell, C. C., & Finomore, V.
    (2018) FFAB — The Form Function Attribution Bias in human-robot interaction. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, (), –. 10.1109/TCDS.2018.2851569
     https://doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2018.2851569 [Google Scholar]
  36. Heritage, J.
    (1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Härkönen, S., & Raudaskoski, S.
    (2024) Vanhemman toimijuus nuoren älypuhelimen käytöstä käytävissä keskusteluissa (Transl. Parental agency in discussions about young people’s smartphone use). Kasvatus, (), –. 10.33348/kvt.148842
     https://doi.org/10.33348/kvt.148842 [Google Scholar]
  38. Härkönen, S., Suoninen, E., & Raudaskoski, S.
    (2018) Nuoren kännykän käytön rajoittamisen puheeksiotto: Vanhemman kanssa käytävän keskustelun haasteet nuorten kertomuksissa (Transl. Raising the issue of restricting young people’s mobile phone use: Challenges in conversations with parents in young people’s narratives). InJ. Eskola, I. Nikanto & S. Virtanen (Eds.), Aikamme kasvastus; vain muutos on pysyvää? (pp.–). Tampere University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Horstmann, A. C., & Krämer, N. C.
    (2019) Great expectations? Relation of previous experiences with social robots in real life or in the media and expectancies based on qualitative and quantitative assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, , Article. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00939
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00939 [Google Scholar]
  40. Jarske, S.
    (2025) Strange machines: Robot sociality as a challenge for human-centred design. Tampere University. https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/163543
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Jarske, S., Kaipainen, K., Ahtinen, A., Varsaluoma, J., & Väänänen, K.
    (2025) How could social robots support societal participation? Findings from five design workshops with young people. International Journal of Social Robotics, (), –. 10.1007/s12369‑025‑01230‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-025-01230-9 [Google Scholar]
  42. Jarske, S., Kaipainen, K., & Väänänen, K.
    (2025) “Maybe it knows more than us”: Exploration of social robots as climate communicators to foster climate hope in adolescents. InJ. Seibt, P. Fazekas & O. S. Quick (Eds.), Social robots with AI: Prospects, risks, and responsible methods (pp.–). IOS Press. 10.3233/FAIA241526
     https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA241526 [Google Scholar]
  43. Jarske, S., Raudaskoski, S., & Kaipainen, K.
    (2020) The “social” of the socially interactive robot: Rethinking human-robot interaction through ethnomethodology. Culturally Sustainable Social Robotics, , –. 10.3233/FAIA200915
     https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200915 [Google Scholar]
  44. Jarske, S., Raudaskoski, S., Kaipainen, K., & Väänänen, K.
    (2025) Situations of group-robot interaction: The collaborative practice of “robot speak.” Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, (), Article 1. 10.7146/si.v8i1.149434
     https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v8i1.149434 [Google Scholar]
  45. Jokinen, K., & Wilcock, G.
    (2017) Expectations and first experience with a social robot. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction, –. 10.1145/3125739.3132610
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3125739.3132610 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kahn, P. H., Freier, N. G., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Ruckert, J. H., Severson, R. L., & Kane, S. K.
    (2008) Design patterns for sociality in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, –. 10.1145/1349822.1349836
     https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349836 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kaipainen, K., Ahtinen, A., & Hiltunen, A.
    (2018) Nice surprise, more present than a machine: Experiences evoked by a social robot for guidance and edutainment at a city service point. Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference, –. 10.1145/3275116.3275137
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3275116.3275137 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kaipainen, K., Jarske, S., Varsaluoma, J., & Väänänen, K.
    (2020) Persuading youth in civic participation with social robots: What is appropriate?Culturally Sustainable Social Robotics, –. 10.3233/FAIA200914
     https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200914 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kaipainen, K., Jarske, S., & Väänänen, K.
    (2023) Identifying opportunities for social robots in youth services: A case study of a youth guidance center. Social Robots in Social Institutions, –. 10.3233/FAIA220629
     https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220629 [Google Scholar]
  50. Keiski, R., Hämäläinen, K., Karhunen, M., Löfström, E., Näreaho, S., Varantola, K., Spoof, S. K., Tarkiainen, T., Kaila, E., & Aittasalo, M.
    (Eds.) (2023) The Finnish code of conduct for research integrity and procedures for handling alleged violations of research integrity in Finland: 2023. Publications of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK, No. 4/2023; vol. 1.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Komatsu, T., Kurosawa, R., & Yamada, S.
    (2012) How does the difference between users’ expectations and perceptions about a robotic agent affect their behavior?International Journal of Social Robotics, (), –. 10.1007/s12369‑011‑0122‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0122-y [Google Scholar]
  52. Kutlák, J.
    (2020) Motivation drivers and barriers of generation Z at work: MEBS method. 16th International Bata Conference for Ph.D. Students and Young Researchers, –.. 10.7441/dokbat.2020.27
     https://doi.org/10.7441/dokbat.2020.27 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kwon, M., Jung, M. F., & Knepper, R. A.
    (2016) Human expectations of social robots. 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), –. 10.1109/HRI.2016.7451807
     https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451807 [Google Scholar]
  54. Leite, I., Pereira, A., Mascarenhas, S., Martinho, C., Prada, R., & Paiva, A.
    (2013) The influence of empathy in human–robot relations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, (), –. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.09.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  55. LeTendre, G. K., & Gray, R.
    (2024) Snitches get unplugged: Adolescents’ privacy concerns about robots in the home are relationally situated. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, (), –. 10.1111/jcal.12872
     https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12872 [Google Scholar]
  56. Levinson, L., Nippert-Eng, C., Gomez, R., & Sabanović, S.
    (2024) Snitches Get Unplugged: Adolescents’ Privacy Concerns about Robots in the Home are Relationally Situated. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, –. 10.1145/3610977.3634946
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3610977.3634946 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lim, D. C. L., Mat, H., & Yusooff, F.
    (2024) Resisting technological solutionism in open universities in the time of global digital convergence. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, (), –. 10.1108/AAOUJ‑11‑2023‑0129
     https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-11-2023-0129 [Google Scholar]
  58. Lindblom, J., & Andreasson, R.
    (2016) Current challenges for UX evaluation of human-robot interaction. InC. Schlick & S. Trzcieliński (Eds.), Advances in ergonomics of manufacturing: Managing the enterprise of the future (pp.–). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑41697‑7_24
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41697-7_24 [Google Scholar]
  59. MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H.
    (2006) The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies, (), –. 10.1075/is.7.3.03mac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.03mac [Google Scholar]
  60. Majlesi, A. R., Cumbal, R., Engwall, O., Gillet, S., Kunitz, S., Lymer, G., Norrby, C., & Tuncer, S.
    (2023) Managing turn-taking in human-robot interactions: The case of projections and overlaps, and the anticipation of turn design by human participants. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, (), Article 1. 10.7146/si.v6i1.137380
     https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v6i1.137380 [Google Scholar]
  61. Matarić, M. J., & Scassellati, B.
    (2016) Socially assistive robotics. InB. Siciliano & O. Khatib (Eds.), Springer handbook of robotics (pp.–). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32552‑1_73
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_73 [Google Scholar]
  62. Mori, M.
    (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy, (), –. (Originally published in Japanese as Bukimi no tani.)
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Mubin, O., Kharub, I., & Khan, A.
    (2020) Pepper in the library. Students’ first impressions. Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, –. 10.1145/3334480.3382979
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382979 [Google Scholar]
  64. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J.
    (2017) Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, (), 1609406917733847. 10.1177/1609406917733847
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 [Google Scholar]
  65. Pelikan, H.
    (2023) Transcribing human–robot interaction: Methodological implications of participating machines. InP. Haddington, T. Eilittä, A. Kamunen, L. Kohonen-Aho, T. Oittinen, I. Rautiainen, & A. Vatanen (Eds.), Ethnomethodological conversation analysis in motion: Emerging methods and new technologies (pp.–). Routledge. 10.4324/9781003424888‑4
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003424888-4 [Google Scholar]
  66. Pelikan, H., Broth, M., & Keevallik, L.
    (2020) “Are you sad, Cozmo?”: How humans make sense of a home robot’s emotion displays. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp.–). Association for Computing Machinery. 10.1145/3319502.3374814
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374814 [Google Scholar]
  67. Rawls, A. W.
    (2023) The Goffman–Garfinkel correspondence: Planning “on passing”. Etnografia e ricerca qualitativa, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Rosén, J., Lindblom, J., & Billing, E.
    (2022) The social robot expectation gap evaluation framework. InM. Kurosu (Ed.), Human-computer interaction. Technological innovation (pp.–). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑031‑05409‑9_43
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05409-9_43 [Google Scholar]
  69. Rudaz, D., & Licoppe, C.
    (2024) ‘Playing the robot’s advocate’: Bystanders’ descriptions of a robot’s conduct in public settings. Discourse & Communication(), –. 10.1177/17504813241271481
     https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813241271481 [Google Scholar]
  70. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, (), –. 10.2307/412243
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  71. Sandoval, E. B., Mubin, O., & Obaid, M.
    (2014) Human robot interaction and fiction: A contradiction. InM. Beetz, B. Johnston, & M.-A. Williams (Eds.), Social robotics (pp.–). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑11973‑1_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11973-1_6 [Google Scholar]
  72. Schegloff, E. A.
    (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  73. Schramm, L. T., Dufault, D., & Young, J. E.
    (2020) Warning: This robot is not what it seems! Exploring expectation discrepancy resulting from robot design. Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, –. 10.1145/3371382.3378280
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3371382.3378280 [Google Scholar]
  74. Shu, X., Mesimäki, M., Kotze, D. J., Wales, M., Xie, L., Benicke, R., & Lehvävirta, S.
    (2022) Needs and expectations of German and Chinese children for livable urban green spaces revealed by the method of empathy-based stories. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, , . 10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127476
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127476 [Google Scholar]
  75. Skantze, G.
    (2021) Turn-taking in conversational systems and human-robot interaction: A review. Computer Speech & Language, , . 10.1016/j.csl.2020.101178
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2020.101178 [Google Scholar]
  76. Smedegaard, C. V.
    (2019) Reframing the role of novelty within social HRI: From noise to information. 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), –. 10.1109/HRI.2019.8673219
     https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673219 [Google Scholar]
  77. Spitale, M., & Gunes, H.
    (2022) Affective robotics for wellbeing: A scoping review. 2022 10th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos (ACIIW), –. 10.1109/ACIIW57231.2022.10085995
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIIW57231.2022.10085995 [Google Scholar]
  78. Stommel, W., de Rijk, L., & Boumans, R.
    (2022) “Pepper, what do you mean?” Miscommunication and repair in robot-led survey interaction. 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), –. 10.1109/RO‑MAN53752.2022.9900528
     https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN53752.2022.9900528 [Google Scholar]
  79. Suchman, L. A.
    (2007) Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2. ed.). University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Särkelä, E., & Suoranta, J.
    (2020) The method of empathy-based stories as a tool for research and teaching. The Qualitative Report, (), –. 10.46743/2160‑3715/2020.4124
     https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4124 [Google Scholar]
  81. Teräs, H., Teräs, M., & Suoranta, J.
    (2024) Holograms or hemorrhoids? Student teachers’ imaginings of the digital futures of education. Nordic Studies in Education, (), Article 2. 10.23865/nse.v44.5928
     https://doi.org/10.23865/nse.v44.5928 [Google Scholar]
  82. Thunberg, S., & Ziemke, T.
    (2020) Are people ready for social robots in public spaces?Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, –. 10.1145/3371382.3378294
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3371382.3378294 [Google Scholar]
  83. Tisserand, L., Stephenson, B., Baldauf-Quilliatre, H., Lefort, M., & Armetta, F.
    (2024) Unraveling the thread: Understanding and addressing sequential failures in human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, . 10.3389/frobt.2024.1359782
     https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2024.1359782 [Google Scholar]
  84. Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H.
    (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, (), –. 10.1017/S0140525X05000129
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129 [Google Scholar]
  85. Tuncer, S., Licoppe, C., Luff, P., & Heath, C.
    (2023) Recipient design in human–robot interaction: The emergent assessment of a robot’s competence. AI & SOCIETY 39, –. 10.1007/s00146‑022‑01608‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01608-7 [Google Scholar]
  86. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs
    United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2018) World youth report: Youth and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Wallin, A., Koro-Ljungberg, M., & Eskola, J.
    (2019) The method of empathy-based stories. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, (), –. 10.1080/1743727X.2018.1533937
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2018.1533937 [Google Scholar]
  88. Wallin, A., Nokelainen, P., & Kira, M.
    (2022) From thriving developers to stagnant self-doubters: An identity-centered approach to exploring the relationship between digitalization and professional development. Vocations and Learning, (), –. 10.1007/s12186‑022‑09288‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-022-09288-6 [Google Scholar]
  89. Wang, C., Shen, J. & Ran, H.
    (2023) Imagining robots of the future: Examining sixth-graders’ perceptions of robots through their literary products. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, (), –. 10.1080/15391523.2022.2030264
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2030264 [Google Scholar]
  90. Woo, H., LeTendre, G. K., Pham-Shouse, T., & Xiong, Y.
    (2021) The use of social robots in classrooms: A review of field-based studies. Educational Research Review, , . 10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100388
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100388 [Google Scholar]
  91. Youth Act 1285/2016, Finland
    Youth Act 1285/2016, Finland (2016) Ministry of Education and Culture. Finnlex.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/is.25017.rau
Loading
Imagining human–robot encounters
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/is.25017.rau
/content/journals/10.1075/is.25017.rau
/content/journals/10.1075/is.25017.rau
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: empathy-based stories ; youth ; socially interactive robots ; qualitative research ; human-robot interaction

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error