Western and eastern perspective on robots

Cultural differences and cross-cultural aspects are frequently addressed in HRI research, both as an explanation for interpreting study results [1] as well as an object of the study itself [2]. Studies in HRI suggest that many principles of cross-cultural behavior can be transferred from human-human to human-robot interaction, such that people’s interpretations, attitudes, and behavior towards robots follows cultural norms and expectations [3].

As an example, a study by Wang et al. looked at how the cultural background and cultural context had an influence when collaborating with a robot. The users in this study were people with a Chinese and a US cultural background. The communication behavior of the robot was altered to find out whether the communication style had a influence on the users credibility, attitude, trust common ground, and perception as a team member of the robot. Based on evidence from cross-cultural psychology, Westerners prefer more direct forms of communication, Easterners a more indirect style of communication. The results of Wang’s study suggest that when robots behave in more culturally normative ways, users are more likely to trust and heed the robots recommendations.

Robots have different traditions in different cultures. Bartneck and Hu argue that the positive attitude towards robots in Eastern cultures, such as the Chinese or Japanese culture, may be based on the positive image conveyed by popular media such as Anime cartoons and movies [4]. On the contrary, the Western attitude is less positive because of uncontrollable and aggressive robots portrayed in movies such as “2001: A Space Odyssey“, “Terminator“ or “The Matrix“. But there is also a more profound difference in the understanding of inanimate objects between eastern and western cultures. In traditional Japanese culture it is commonplace that also non-human entities and even manmade objects have a life force and possess a spiritual essence. The animistic worldview also applies to robots and blurs the line between the Western distinction between humans and inanimate as separate entities. Kitano explains why despite the social and technological modernization of Japan, this view is still present also in modern Japan. While the abrupt modernization of Japan within approximately 50 years caused in the success of technological development and a change of the social system, this period was not long enough to make a change in the way of thinking and living of people [5]. This mindset, rooted in the cultural history of Japan, contributes to a more positive social acceptance and affirmation of robotics in Japan.

Japanese society seemed to realize, that digital technology has created social isolation. Robots are for Europeans often seen as a step backwards on a social level and often create the fear of replacing people. Differently, in Japan robotics is seen as a way of actually turning away from the digital virtual world to more human-like objects and thereby facilitating contact in the physical world again.

This documentary asks the question why Western people are rather reluctant to robots and why the Japanese “love” them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXz0boNmwak&feature=youtu.be

Literature
  1. Bartneck, C. and J. Hu. Rapid prototyping for interactive robots. in The 8th Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (IAS-8). 2004.
  2. Wang, L., et al. When in Rome: the role of culture & context in adherence to robot recommendations. in Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. 2010. IEEE.
  3. Wang, L., et al. When in Rome: the role of culture & context in adherence to robot recommendations. in Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. 2010. IEEE.
  4. Bartneck, C. and J. Hu. Rapid prototyping for interactive robots. in The 8th Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (IAS-8). 2004.
  5. Kitano, N. Animism, Rinri, modernization; the base of Japanese robotics. in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 2007.

Leave a Reply