Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Emotion Appropriateness in Human–Drone Interaction

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As robotic agents become increasingly pervasive in our lives, recent works have shown promising results on the use of emotions on social drones. However, further research is needed to determine the appropriateness of these emotions in various contexts. We here investigate the appropriateness of seven drone emotional states. In a series of six workshops (\(N{=}30\)) consisting of both individual and group activities, we studied emotion appropriateness for six drone metaphors across the two most popular and radically different domains for Human–Drone Interaction namely: Emergency and Entertainment. Within diverse situations of interactions, participants were able to identify the appropriateness of each emotion. Our results describe how each emotion was found both appropriate and inappropriate depending on context. We provide insights into unique opportunities generated by the perceived emotion appropriateness, depending on different roles of drone emotions in interactions with people. We conclude with design considerations for future social robotic agents, including the importance of using a broad range of emotions, the use of a neutral expression, the temporality of emotions, and novel applications to interaction design. This work contributes to the understanding of the inner workings of emotion appropriateness in drones, providing researchers with a starting point for future work on social flying robots.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author [VH]. The data are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. While the term “metaphor” often refers to an idiom or phrase, we here refer to a single descriptor as presented in [20].

  2. Note that the Unusual drone was not considered as it represents a collection of unique applications, which are less formed in the prior body of work.

  3. Note: In the results section, Eme and Ent respectively refer to the Emergency and Entertainment domains.

References

  1. Herdel V, Kuzminykh A, Hildebrandt A, et al (2021) Drone in love: Emotional perception of facial expressions on flying robots. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, CHI ’21, pp 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445495

  2. Cauchard JR, Zhai KY, Spadafora M et al (2016) Emotion encoding in human-drone interaction. In: The 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. IEEE, HRI, vol 16, pp 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451761

  3. Sharma M, Hildebrandt D, Newman G, et al (2013) Communicating affect via flight path: exploring use of the Laban effort system for designing affective locomotion paths. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE, HRI 13, pp 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483602

  4. Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries (2022) appropriate. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/appropriate_1. Last Accessed 02 Feb 2023

  5. Stock-Homburg R (2021) Survey of emotions in human–robot interactions: perspectives from robotic psychology on 20 years of research. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00778-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fosch Villaronga E (2019) I Love You, said the robot: boundaries of the use of emotions in human–robot interactions, Springer, Cham, pp 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96722-6_6

  7. Ekman P (1999) Basic emotions. In: Handbook of cognition and emotion, vol 98, Nos 45–60, p 16. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013494.ch3

  8. Funk M (2018) Human–drone interaction: let’s get ready for flying user interfaces! Interactions 25(3):78–81. https://doi.org/10.1145/3194317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Suarez-Fernandez RA, Sanchez-Lopez JL, Sampedro C, et al (2016) Natural user interfaces for human-drone multi-modal interaction. In: International conference on unmanned aircraft systems (ICUAS). IEEE, pp 1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUAS.2016.7502665

  10. Cauchard JR, E JL, Zhai KY, et al (2015) Drone & me: An exploration into natural human-drone interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. ACM, New York, NY, USA, UbiComp ’15, pp 361–365. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2805823

  11. Obaid M, Kistler F, Kasparavičiūtundefined G, et al (2016) How would you gesture navigate a drone? a user-centered approach to control a drone. In: Proceedings of the 20th international academic mindtrek conference. ACM, New York, NY, USA, AcademicMindtrek ’16, pp 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1145/2994310.2994348

  12. Alon O, Rabinovich S, Fyodorov C, et al (2021) Drones in firefighting: A user-centered design perspective. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on mobile human–computer interaction. Association for computing machinery, New York, NY, USA, MobileHCI ’21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447526.3472030

  13. Cai C, Yang S, Yan P, et al (2019) Real-time human-posture recognition for human–drone interaction using monocular vision. In: Intelligent robotics and applications. Springer, Cham, pp 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27541-9_18

  14. Cauchard JR, Tamkin A, Wang CY, et al (2019) Drone.io: a gestural and visual interface for human–drone interaction. In: 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673011

  15. Avila M, Funk M, Henze N (2015) Dronenavigator: using drones for navigating visually impaired persons. In: Proceedings of the 17th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility. ACM, New York, NY, USA, ASSETS ’15, pp 327–328. https://doi.org/10.1145/2700648.2811362

  16. Ginosar E, Cauchard JR (2023) At first light: Expressive lights in support of drone-initiated communication. In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for computing machinery, New York, NY, USA, CHI ’23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581062

  17. Salvini P, Ciaravella G, Yu W, et al (2010) How safe are service robots in urban environments? Bullying a robot. In: 19th international symposium in robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2010.5654677

  18. Baytas MA, Çay D, Zhang Y, et al (2019) The design of social drones: A review of studies on autonomous flyers in inhabited environments. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for computing machinery, New York, NY, USA, CHI ’19, pp 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300480

  19. Fartook O, Oron-Gilad T, Cauchard JR (2023) Designing and prototyping drones for emotional support. In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. Association for computing machinery, New York, NY, USA, HRI ’23, pp 234–237. https://doi.org/10.1145/3568294.3580079

  20. Herdel V, Yamin LJ, Cauchard JR (2022) Above and beyond: A scoping review of domains and applications for human-drone interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, CHI ’22, pp 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501881

  21. Herdel V, Yamin LJ, Ginosar E et al (2021) Public drone: attitude towards drone capabilities in various contexts. ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447526.3472053

  22. Scherer KR (2005) What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Soc Sci Inf 44(4):695–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405058216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ekman P, Friesen WV (1971) Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. J Personal Soc Psychol 17(2):124–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Baumeister R, Vohs K, DeWall CN et al (2007) How emotion shapes behavior: feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 11:167–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Breazeal C (2003) Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. Int J Hum Comput Stud 59(1–2):119–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00018-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Frith CD, Frith U (2006) How we predict what other people are going to do. Brain Res 1079(1):36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Reyes ME, Meza IV, Pineda LA (2019) Robotics facial expression of anger in collaborative human–robot interaction. Int J Adv Robot Syst. https://doi.org/10.1177/1729881418817972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Eyssel F, Hegel F, Horstmann G, et al (2010) Anthropomorphic inferences from emotional nonverbal cues: a case study. In: 19th international symposium in robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 646–651. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2010.5598687

  29. Wiese E, Metta G, Wykowska A (2017) Robots as intentional agents: using neuroscientific methods to make robots appear more social. Front Psychol 8:1663. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim EH, Kwak SS, Kwak YK (2009) Can robotic emotional expressions induce a human to empathize with a robot? In: The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 358–362. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326282

  31. Zhou S, Tian L (2020) Would you help a sad robot? Influence of robots’ emotional expressions on human-multi-robot collaboration. In: 2020 29th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication, pp 1243–1250. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN47096.2020.9223524

  32. Złotowski J, Proudfoot D, Yogeeswaran K et al (2015) Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 7(3):347–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Leite I, Pereira A, Martinho C, et al (2008) Are emotional robots more fun to play with? In: RO-MAN 2008—the 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600646

  34. Hoffman G, Ju W (2014) Designing robots with movement in mind. J Hum Robot Interact 3(1):91–122. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.3.1.Hoffman

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. van Breemen A (2004) Animation engine for believable interactive user-interface robots. In: 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), vol 3, pp 2873–2878. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004.1389845

  36. Li Z, Cummings C, Sreenath K (2020) Animated Cassie: a dynamic relatable robotic character. In: 2020 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 3739–3746. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS45743.2020.9340894

  37. Chan L, Zhang BJ, Fitter NT (2021) Designing and validating expressive cozmo behaviors for accurately conveying emotions. In: 2021 30th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 1037–1044. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN50785.2021.9515425

  38. Wojciechowska A, Frey J, Mandelblum E et al (2019) Designing drones: factors and characteristics influencing the perception of flying robots. Proc ACM Interact Mobile Wearable Ubiquitous Technol 3(3):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ruijten PAM, Cuijpers RH (2018) If drones could see: investigating evaluations of a drone with eyes. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05204-1_7

  40. Kirby R, Forlizzi J, Simmons R (2010) Affective social robots. Robot Auton Syst 58(3):322–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2009.09.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hegel F, Spexard T, Wrede B, et al (2006) Playing a different imitation game: interaction with an empathic android robot. In: 2006 6th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, pp 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHR.2006.321363

  42. Tielman M, Neerincx M, Meyer JJ, et al (2014) Adaptive emotional expression in robot-child interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, New York, NY, USA, HRI ’14, pp 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559663

  43. James J, Watson CI, MacDonald B (2018) Artificial empathy in social robots: an analysis of emotions in speech. In: 2018 27th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 632–637. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2018.8525652

  44. Brave S, Nass C, Hutchinson K (2005) Computers that care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. Int J Hum Comput Stud 62(2):161–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. de Graaf MMA, Ben Allouch S, van Dijk JAGM (2015) What makes robots social?: A user’s perspective on characteristics for social human–robot interaction. In: Social Robotics. Springer, Cham, pp 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_19

  46. Pelikan HRM, Broth M, Keevallik L (2020) "are you sad, Cozmo?": How humans make sense of a home robot’s emotion displays. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, New York, NY, USA, HRI ’20, pp 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374814

  47. Eastwood JD, Smilek D, Merikle PM (2001) Differential attentional guidance by unattended faces expressing positive and negative emotion. Percept Psychophys 63(6):1004–1013. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Anderson M, Anderson S, Armen C (2005) Towards machine ethics: implementing two action-based ethical theories. In: AAAI fall symposium—technical report, pp 1–7

  49. Ojha S, Williams MA, Johnston B (2018) The essence of ethical reasoning in robot-emotion processing. Int J Soc Robot 10(2):211–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0459-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Petrak B, Stapels JG, Weitz K, et al (2021) To move or not to move? social acceptability of robot proxemics behavior depending on user emotion. In: 2021 30th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 975–982. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN50785.2021.9515502

  51. van Maris A, Zook N, Caleb-Solly P et al (2020) Designing ethical social robots–a longitudinal field study with older adults. Front Robot AI 7:1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2020.00001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Karjalainen KD, Romell AES, Ratsamee P, et al (2017) Social drone companion for the home environment: a user-centric exploration. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on human agent interaction. ACM, New York, NY, USA, HAI ’17, pp 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1145/3125739.3125774

  54. Lidynia C, Philipsen R, Ziefle M (2017) Droning on about drones–acceptance of and perceived barriers to drones in civil usage contexts. In: Advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems. Springer, Cham, pp 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41959-6_26

  55. Salvini P, Laschi C, Dario P (2010) Design for acceptability: improving robots’ coexistence in human society. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):451–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0079-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Plutchik R (1980) A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion. In: Theories of Emotion. Elsevier, pp 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-558701-3.50007-7

  57. Russell JA (1980) A circumplex model of affect. J Personal Soc Psychol 39(6):1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Bartneck C, Reichenbach J, van Breemen A (2004) In your face, robot! The influence of a character’s embodiment on how users perceive its emotional expressions. In: Proceedings of design and emotion 2004 conference, pp 32–51. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5160769

  59. Cañamero L, Fredslund J (2001) I show you how i like you—can you read it in my face? [robotics]. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 31(5):454–459. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.952719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Gasper K, Spencer LA, Hu D (2019) Does neutral affect exist? How challenging three beliefs about neutral affect can advance affective research. Front Psychol 10:2476. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Goldschmidt G, Sever AL (2011) Inspiring design ideas with texts. Des Stud 32(2):139–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M (2005) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind, vol 2. Mcgraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  63. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T et al (2006) Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interact Stud 7(3):437–454. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.14nom

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wojciechowska A, Hamidi F, Lucero A, et al (2020) Chasing lions: Co-designing human-drone interaction in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM designing interactive systems conference. ACM, New York, NY, USA, DIS ’20, pp 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395481

  65. Harrison C, Faste H (2014) Implications of location and touch for on-body projected interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on designing interactive systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, DIS ’14, pp 543–552. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598587

  66. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Terry G, Hayfield N (2020) Reflexive thematic analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788977159.00049

    Book  Google Scholar 

  68. Cauchard JR, Gover W, Chen W et al (2021) Drones in wonderland—disentangling collocated interaction using radical form. IEEE Robot Autom Lett. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2021.3103653

  69. Shapira S, Cauchard JR (2022) Integrating drones in response to public health emergencies: a combined framework to explore technology acceptance. Front Public Health 10:1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1019626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Rosenfeld A (2019) Are drivers ready for traffic enforcement drones? Accid Anal Prevent 122:199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Aydin B (2019) Public acceptance of drones: knowledge, attitudes, and practice. Technol Soc 59(101):180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Tsiourti C, Weiss A, Wac K, et al (2017) Designing emotionally expressive robots: A comparative study on the perception of communication modalities. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on human agent interaction. ACM, New York, NY, USA, HAI ’17, pp 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1145/3125739.3125744

  73. Chen JYC, Lakhmani SG, Stowers K et al (2018) Situation awareness-based agent transparency and human-autonomy teaming effectiveness. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 19(3):259–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2017.1315750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Mercado JE, Rupp MA, Chen JYC et al (2016) Intelligent agent transparency in human-agent teaming for multi-UxV management. Hum Factors 58(3):401–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815621206

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. Yisrael Parmet for his support and Zachary McKendrick for his consultancy and help in editing the scenarios. This research was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust through the Agricultural, Biological and Cognitive Robotics Initiative and by the Marcus Endowment Fund both at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Funding

Partial financial support was received from the Helmsley Charitable Trust through the Agricultural, Biological and Cognitive Robotics Initiative and by the Marcus Endowment Fund both at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Magic Lab, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Ben-Gurion Blvd. 1, 8410501, Beer Sheva, Israel

    Viviane Herdel & Jessica R. Cauchard

Authors
  1. Viviane Herdel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica R. Cauchard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Viviane Herdel, and analysis by Viviane Herdel and Jessica R. Cauchard. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Viviane Herdel and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Viviane Herdel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical Approval

The questionnaires and methodology for this study was approved by the Human Research Ethics committee of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for Publication

Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herdel, V., Cauchard, J.R. Emotion Appropriateness in Human–Drone Interaction. Int J of Soc Robotics 16, 579–597 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01094-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01094-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation