Relational Artifacts/Children/Elders : The Complexities of CyberCompanions

This is a report that reflects work from several studies in which commercially available robotic creatures, Furbies, My Real Babies and AIBOs, were introduced into two nursing home settings in Massachusetts as well as into the lives of children, both in school settings and in their homes. The purpose of integrating case studies from these disparate studies is to open up a conversation about the range of issues that are raised by even very simple relational artifacts as a matrix for building relationships. These issues are important for two main reasons. First, ethnographic work with even simple robots illustrates how cybercompanions are evocative objects for reflection on such issues as what is essential about aliveness, about being a person and about the roles of thought and feeling, affect and cognition in defining human uniqueness. Second, this paper reports on individual differences among the users of robotic technology, differences that have to do with personality and cognitive style. As robots move into the therapeutic domain, such individual differences will become increasingly relevant to the field of “clinical robotics. ” Relational Artifacts Here I report on studies in which I used Tiger Electronics’ Furby, Sony’s AIBO, and Hasbro’s My Real Baby to study the reaction of senior citizens and children to simple robotic creatures. My working hypothesis: even the simplest encounters with an object that simulates social interaction provides a window onto the psychology of the encounters between people and relational artifacts, here defined as artifacts that have inner “states of mind” and where encounters with the artifacts are enriched through understanding these inner states. In the literature, such creatures are otherwise discussed, sometimes, for example as “sociable robots”(Breazeal, 2000, 2002, Breazeal and Scasselatti, 1999, 2000). I prefer to talk of them as relational artifacts because of the connection of this way of speaking to the psychoanalytic/psychodynamic tradition (Turkle, 2004a, 2004b). Case Studies of Seniors Interacting with computational objects has an effect on how we think about ourselves. For example, people tend to define what is special about being human by comparing themselves to their “nearest neighbors,” so when our nearest neighbors were pets, people declared themselves special because of their intellects (Turkle, 1984, Turkle, 1995). When computers were primitive machines and began to be analogized to people, people were superior because of their superior intellects as well. As the computers became smarter, people’s emphasis shifted to the soul and the spirit in the human machine in order to maintain a sense of difference. In case studies of seniors, they too, searched for what set them apart from machines, and reached, first of all, for emotion. But even the fairly primitive My Real Baby posed some challenges to this strategy because it seemed to have emotions. Seniors then turned to biological criteria, a response exemplified in the case of Jonathan. In the presence of relational artifacts, what makes people special is the fact that we are biological beings rather than mechanical ones. People’s “feelings” are not devalued, but they no longer seem equal to the task of putting enough distance between ourselves and the robots we have created in our image. Our bodies, our sexuality, and our spirituality simply do a better job. Beyond the evocation of philosophical reflection, interacting with relational artifacts seemed to put some seniors in touch with significant life relationships. (See Drexler, 1999; Hirsch, et al, 2000) For example, it was not unusual over time for seniors to re-enact scenes from their children’s youth or important moments in their relationships with spouses. Although many of the seniors I interviewed had non-robotic dolls or stuffed animals in their possession, the staff of one of the nursing homes felt the seniors’ relationships with the robots were different enough to justify buying robotic dolls with her own funds to supplement the dolls provided through our project. Seniors were more comfortable playing out family scenes with the robot dolls than with traditional dolls. Possible explanations include the robot doll’s interactivity and responsiveness and the social “permission” that being with a robot provided since the robots are presented as being a “grownup” activity. It is significant that the nursing staff supported the purchase of additional dolls, among other things because it gave the elders something to talk about. This use of the robots to build “community” was something I did not anticipate when I began the project. I found it quite promising. Different seniors had different styles of relating to relational artifacts. Here I characterize two approaches through illustrative case studies: scientific/exploratory illustrated by Jonathan and relational-animistic highlighted by Andy. It is important that robotics research appreciate these individual differences in style, both cognitive and affective. If the field wishes to move into serious therapeutic work, these individual differences will have significant clinical importance. Jonathan/ Scientific-Exploratory Approach Jonathan, 74, approaches relational artifacts in a detached manner, with a desire to analyze them engineer-style. At the time of our study, Jonathan had been in the nursing home for two years. He is well-spoken, curious, and intelligent. He is not social, but tends to be reclusive, even sullen, with slow and precise movements. He has been diagnosed as having obsessive-compulsive tendencies and has lived a very solitary life, with few friends. He has never married and has no children. He was an accountant for most of his life, but was most happy when he worked on a computer software assembly line. Jonathan tells us that throughout his life he has been regularly ridiculed for his obsessive ways. From his first interaction with the My Real Baby doll at a group activity to his last interview after having kept the doll for four months in his room, Jonathan remained fascinated with how the doll functioned. His handling of the doll is methodological and exploratory. He handles the doll with emotional detachment, and relates to it as a technological novelty. When Jonathan first takes the doll, which is cooing and giggling, he bounces it up and down, looks it over carefully, pokes and squeezes it in different places, and moves its limbs. He focuses on the doll’s reactions. He tries hard to understand what the doll says and where the sound comes from. He discovers that its voice comes from its stomach and puts it up to his ear. When asked about his first impression of My Real Baby, Jonathan says: I think that this doll is a very remarkable toy. I have never seen anything like this before. But I’d like to know, how in the entire universe is it possible to construct a doll that talks like this? Jonathan talks to the researchers about the doll but does not speak to the doll itself. Although Jonathan sometimes refers to the doll as “she,” he relates to it as an object, rather than as a sentient being. When we ask Jonathan what he plans to do with the doll when we will leave it with him for several months during our study, he answers “I suppose [I will] touch it in various places and listen to what she says. ” His interactions with the doll are a series of experiments. Most notably, he slaps the doll to test how it reacts, as he says “to see if the doll will start crying. ” This is a way for Jonathan to test how life-like the doll is, and to continue to compare the doll’s behavior to that of a real baby. His exploration also involves opening the back of the doll with a screwdriver and taking out and replacing the batteries. He follows the instruction manual to the letter. Although Jonathan relates to the doll as an object, he says that looking inside the doll could help him establish an emotional bond with it. Jonathan: I think an emotional contact [with the doll] does mean something to me. Yes, I think I would enjoy having an emotional contact with it. Researcher: Do you think you could have an emotional contact with it? Jonathan: I believe I could. Researcher: What could make that happen? Jonathan: Well, if I would have had the Philips screwdriver and I had been able to try and follow everything in the instruction manual that would have happened. In fact that might happen now as I’m going through the instruction manual. Researcher: Does it feel like you are getting to know her?