The Potential of Telepresence Robots for Intergroup Contact

Avner Peled

1 a

, Teemu Leinonen

1 b

and B

eatrice Hasler

2 c

Department of Media, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

Sammy Ofer School of Communications, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, Herzliya, Israel

Keywords:

Intergroup Contact, Human-Robot Interaction, Telepresence, Conﬂict Resolution.

Abstract:

We propose the use of telepresence robots as a medium for intergroup contact that aims at reducing prejudice

between groups in conﬂict. We argue for robots as a midpoint between online communication and a face-

to-face meeting, combining the ﬂexibility of the virtual world and the depth of physical interactions. We

deﬁne the basic architecture of telepresence systems and present a conceptual framework for robot-mediated

encounters in an intergroup context. We then provide design guidelines for telepresence systems that may

guide future implementations of robotic intergroup contact.

1 INTRODUCTION

The pervasive role of technology in intensifying the

ability of humans to harm one another is well known;

the use of technology to promote peace at both the

collective and personal levels is considerably more

modest. Over the years there have been calls within

the Human-Computer Interaction research commu-

nity to promote the use of technology to support peace

in world conﬂicts (Hourcade and Bullock-Rest, 2011;

Eckert et al., 2019). Often when people think of a

technological contribution to conﬂict resolution, the

emphasis is placed on decision support and negotia-

tion for policymakers and national leaders. A differ-

ent approach that is taken in the current paper, is using

technology to reconcile the ‘common’ people in a sit-

uation of conﬂict and build more positive intergroup

relations from the bottom up.

One of the most prominent models that act as a

guideline for this approach is the contact hypothe-

sis (Allport, 1954), which states that under the right

conditions, encounters with members of the opposing

group (i.e., the outgroup) can lead to reduced preju-

dice and more harmonious intergroup relations. We

propose using robots as a communication medium for

such contact, as they combine both the ﬂexibility and

accessibility of online communication and the corpo-

reality of face-to-face encounters in a shared physical

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0525-6385

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6227-052X

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3251-4677

space.

The hypotheses presented in this article are par-

tially based on observations from an initial test we

conducted on intergroup telepresence contact (Peled,

2019). The test system included one remotely con-

trolled telerobot that facilitated conversations be-

tween immigrants and local participants. We have an-

alyzed the results qualitatively through post-session

interviews.

2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Intergroup Contact Hypothesis

The contact hypothesis, as formulated by Gordon All-

port in his seminal book The Nature of Prejudice

(1954), speciﬁes four conditions that need to be ful-

ﬁlled during positive intergroup contact: equal status,

having common goals, active cooperation, and insti-

tutional support. Fifty years later, a meta-analysis

across more than 500 studies in a variety of inter-

group contexts (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006) has re-

vealed that contact is an effective means to reduce

prejudice. However, the meta-analysis also showed

that the conditions are not strictly essential for a pos-

itive outcome, yet they are factors among others that

facilitate it. Later research focused on expanding the

theory to include more conditions such as forming

cross-group friendships (Cook, 1962) and identifying

affective drivers, such as empathy and (reduced) anxi-

210

Peled, A., Leinonen, T. and Hasler, B.

The Potential of Telepresence Robots for Intergroup Contact.

DOI: 10.5220/0010148102100217

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications (CHIRA 2020), pages 210-217

ISBN: 978-989-758-480-0

ety, that play a mediating role in contact interventions

(Pettigrew et al., 2011; Brown and Hewstone, 2005).

An additional factor that moderates the outcome of

contact is group salience, the degree in which the par-

ticipants’ group identity is evident. A high level of

group salience facilitates the generalization of atti-

tudes from the interpersonal level to the group level

(Voci and Hewstone, 2003).

Most previous intergroup contact studies were

conducted in face-to-face (FtF) settings. However,

face-to-face contact can be challenging to implement,

particularly in areas of violent conﬂict (Hasler and

Amichai-Hamburger, 2013). Organizers commonly

face practical issues such as gathering diverse groups,

ﬁnding a neutral, accessible location, and compensat-

ing participants for travel expenses. Therefore, recent

projects have used technology (especially online com-

munication) to facilitate intergroup encounters.

2.2 Online Contact

Communication technologies expand the models of

contact and add new modalities of interaction while

compromising on the beneﬁts of traditional FtF en-

counters. Research on online intergroup contact has

shown its potential to reduce prejudice and aid in

conﬂict resolution (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2015;

Hasler and Amichai-Hamburger, 2013; Walther et al.,

2015). However, online contact is not always con-

structive, and may result in a negative outcome and in-

creased prejudice. The remote nature of the medium

makes participants less accountable for their actions

and less engaged in the conversation (White et al.,

2015; Schumann et al., 2017). The lack of nonver-

bal cues (Burgoon and Hoobler, 1994) obstructs the

path to a mutual understanding and impairs the turn-

taking process, which may evoke negative feelings

between the group members, such as anger and frus-

tration (Johnson et al., 2009).

Virtual reality (VR) is studied as a medium that

offers an immersive communication experience that

increases the user’s sense of embodiment during com-

munication (Kilteni et al., 2012). It was positively

evaluated for use in intergroup contact, both as a

space for dialog (Hasler et al., 2014), and as a tool

that allows individuals to immerse themselves in the

perspective of the other side (Hasson et al., 2019; Ka-

biljo, 2019). However, along with its promise, VR

also raises a number of ethical and moral concerns.

While the experience of being in the virtual space

intensiﬁes as the technology develops, our corporeal

body is left behind as we subsume an abstract rep-

resentation as our new reality (Penny, 1993). This

quintessential mind-body split may alter one’s rela-

tion to corporeality, leading to psychological deﬁcits,

such as depersonalization and derealization or body

neglect (Spiegel, 2018). Additionally, immersive

perspective-taking risks in assuming an ‘improper

distance’ (Chouliaraki, 2011; Nash, 2018) between

the viewer and the outgroup member, in which one

subordinates the other, incorporating their representa-

tion, rather than recognizing their irreducible alterity.

Prejudice can be seen as an abstraction of the

human body (Ahmed, 2000); yet despite the inher-

ent abstraction in virtual mediums and the widely

recognized role the body in forming social cogni-

tion (Dewey, 1986; Merleau-Ponty, 2013; Gallagher,

2006; Malafouris, 2013), little attention has been

given to robots as a tool for intergroup contact. Re-

motely controlled robots (telerobots) have a lot in

common with online mediums and may carry similar

risks when used for contact. Nevertheless, telerobots

have a physical presence; we use our bodies to inter-

act with robots just as we would with a living being.

They provide corporeal depth to mediated contact, sit-

uating a midpoint between online communication and

an FtF meeting.

2.3 Telepresence and Telerobots

Originally, the term telepresence was used by Mar-

vin Minsky and Patrick Gunkel to describe a vision of

a futuristic economy in which people perform man-

ual, physical labor from remote locations (Minsky,

1980). Although the term is nowadays used to de-

scribe a human’s presence in a virtual environment

(Steuer, 1992), telepresence originally refers to the

experience of being in a remote environment that is

real and mediated by a physical sensing agent, that is,

a telerobot. (Campanella, 2000). When a telerobot

serves as a remote representation of a human oper-

ator, it is referred to as its avatar. In phenomeno-

logical terms, the experience of operating a teler-

obot is named re-embodiment (Dolezal, 2009). To-

day’s telerobots go beyond industrial use and are de-

ployed in social care (Michaud et al., 2007), education

(Tanaka et al., 2014), and interpersonal communica-

tion (Ogawa et al., 2011), utilizing the internet as the

medium for tele-operation.

2.4 A Conceptual Model for

Telepresence Contact

Based on previous models of prejudice reduction in

intergroup contact (Pettigrew, 1998; Brown and Hew-

stone, 2005), we suggest a conceptual model for

telepresence-based contact (see ﬁg. 1). We hypoth-

esize that an ingroup member ﬁrst develops an atti-

The Potential of Telepresence Robots for Intergroup Contact

211

Figure 1: Telepresence Contact: Conceptual model.

tude toward the robot before projecting it onto the out-

group human operator. The initial attitude toward the

robot could be inﬂuenced by a previous general bias

or by characteristics of the particular robot. We then

expect the perception of the robot as a representation

of the operator’s agency to be moderated by the de-

gree of perceived co-presence. Initially formulated

by Goffman as a measure of our awareness of an-

other human being in our physical space (Goffman,

2008), the term is now used in literature to measure

the feeling of “togetherness” in mediated communica-

tion, virtual (S

oeffner and Nam, 2007; Casanueva and

Blake, 2001; Bente et al., 2008), and physical (Hwang

et al., 2008; Choi and Kwak, 2017). Finally, as previ-

ous research on intergroup contact suggests (Voci and

Hewstone, 2003; Brown and Hewstone, 2005; Ken-

worthy et al., 2005), a generalized attitude toward the

outgroup is moderated by the level of group salience

apparent in the conversation.

2.5 Telepresence Systems

A communication event that is mediated by telepres-

ence robots could manifest in different architectures

that we deﬁne as telepresence systems. We identify

three different types:

1. Asymmetric: Participant A (operator) is repre-

sented by a telerobot and is operating it from a re-

mote location using a computer or mobile device.

Participant B (interlocutor) is co-located with the

robot, interacting with it in a shared physical envi-

ronment. Implementations of asymmetric systems

include industrial robots, military robots, surgical

robots, ofﬁce work telepresence, and social ser-

vice robots.

2. Symmetric bidirectional: Both participants are si-

multaneously interacting with a co-located robot

and operating their remote telerobot. The oper-

ators do not see a dedicated control interface as

they would in a computer-based interface. In-

stead, they interact with the robot of their partner,

allowing it to capture their movements and trans-

mit them to the telerobot representing them on the

opposing end. This type of system is more chal-

lenging to implement, and only a few implemen-

tations exist as prototypes and proofs-of-concept

(Nagendran et al., 2015).

3. Symmetric unidirectional: Both participants are

operating a telerobot via a control interface, with-

out any physical human-robot interaction tak-

ing place. The two robots are co-located with

each other, while the participants are in sepa-

rate spaces. Implementations of this system in-

clude cooperative multi-robot tasks (Sirouspour

and Setoodeh, 2005) and Robot combat compe-

titions such as Battle Bots

3 TELEPRESENCE DESIGN

CONSIDERATIONS FOR

INTERGROUP CONTACT

Research in Human-Robot-Interaction (HRI) over the

past two decades offers insight on a wide range of

possibilities for designing social robots (robots that

conduct social interaction with humans). Key factors

that inﬂuence the attitude toward the robot include the

level of anthropomorphism of the robot’s appearance

(Hancock et al., 2011; Fink, 2012), the use of an ex-

ternal display on the body of the robot (Thrun, 2004;

Choi and Kwak, 2016), the use of affective touch and

soft materials (Kerruish, 2017; Stiehl et al., 2005; Bao

et al., 2018), and the use of nonverbal cues (Hirano

et al., 2016; Lala et al., 2019). In telepresence, re-

search focused on factors affecting the sense of pres-

ence and self-extension from operators toward their

robotic avatars. Key elements include the respon-

siveness and feedback level of the control interface

(Cole et al., 2000; Dolezal, 2009) and appearance of

the robotic avatar (Lee et al., 2015a; Groom et al.,

2009). Fig. 2 depicts a variety of existing telerobot

designs. Designs vary from the commonly used video

conferencing tablet on wheels to full-body anthropo-

morphic, zoomorphic, and caricature appearances.

The above factors are all relevant for establishing

trust and positive relations between interlocutors and

robotic avatars. In this article, however, we focus on

the design and architectural elements that may be of

particular importance to intergroup contact and con-

ﬂict resolution. The following sections hypothesize

potential pitfalls and opportunities one may encounter

when applying telepresence robots as a means to re-

duce prejudice between groups.

https://battlebots.com/

CHIRA 2020 - 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

212

Figure 2: Telepresence Robots. Left to right: Dou-

ble Robotics

, Telenoid (Ogawa et al., 2011), BOCCO

stuffed-bear robot (Kuwamura et al., 2012).

3.1 Equality

One of Allport’s conditions for positive intergroup

contact is having an equal status between group mem-

bers; for example, colleagues in a workplace context

(Allport, 1954). It was further shown that maintain-

ing symmetry and equality during communication is

beneﬁcial for contact in groups that are in asymmet-

ric conﬂicts, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conﬂict

(Maoz, 2005).

Symmetric telepresence systems provide the hard-

ware foundation for equality in contact situations, but

asymmetric systems produce an experience that is dif-

ferent in nature for both sides. The side that is in-

teracting with the robot is less aware of the media-

tion that is taking place and may experience stronger

senses of agency (the sense that I am the initiator of an

act) and ownership (the sense that it is my body that

is moving) in the interaction (Gallagher, 2000; Cole

et al., 2000). The side that is operating the telerobot

from a distance is more aware of the control opera-

tion and may exhibit behaviors characterizing anony-

mous computer-mediated-communication (CMC), as

posited in the SIDE model (Spears et al., 2002) or the

hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996).

https://www.doublerobotics.com/

https://www.bocco.me/en/

In one use-case between advantaged and disad-

vantaged groups, a disadvantaged-group member may

operate a telerobot anonymously from their home,

while the advantaged-group member is interacting

with it in a public space. This scenario is likely to

reduce anxiety as the operator remains in their com-

fort zone and may get empowered by the ability to

see through the robot’s camera while not being seen

by the interaction partner. That may not only lower

the participation threshold in an intergroup contact

project but may also encourage bringing up more dif-

ﬁcult topics related to conﬂict during the conversa-

tion. However, such a reversed power asymmetry

in robotic intergroup encounters could also hinder

the experience. In an initial test case conducted in

an intercultural setting between minority and major-

ity groups in Finland, participants felt uncomfortable

with the asymmetry. One member of a minority group

noted that they felt as if they were a government ofﬁ-

cial investigating their exposed partners (Peled, 2019,

p.132).

3.2 Anthropomorphism and

Dehumanization

A pivotal discussion revolves around the question of

anthropomorphism: the degree in which a robot’s ap-

pearance and behavior resemble that of a human. Cur-

rent literature paints a picture that is manifold (Fink,

2012): while anthropomorphic features may increase

empathy and acceptance of the robot, the effect is con-

text and culturally-dependent. In some cases, peo-

ple have preferred pet-shaped over human-like robots,

particularly in the realms of child therapy and elderly

care (Lorenz et al., 2016). Human-like robots may

also raise negative emotions when they appear eerily

human but are noticeably non-human (See the theory

of the Uncanny valley (Mori et al., 2012)). Addition-

ally, research by Groom et al. (2009) suggests that

robot operators have a greater sense of self-extension

(Belk, 1988) to their avatar when it is non-human.

Despite the advantages of a non-anthropomorphic

appearance, the question deepens in the context of

intergroup contact. Dehumanization (i.e., seeing an

outgroup member as non-human or less than human)

is both a marker and a driver of intergroup conﬂict

(Haslam, 2006; Kteily et al., 2016). Speciﬁcally, in-

dividuals involved in intergroup conﬂict tend to view

the outgroup as either animal-like or mechanistic au-

tomata, both common forms for robots. Current re-

search does not yet deal with the effects of avatar an-

thropomorphism on intergroup conﬂict, but a study

on video games points out that people ﬁnd it easier to

make immoral decisions toward non-human avatars

The Potential of Telepresence Robots for Intergroup Contact

213

(Lin, 2011). Additionally, the distance formed by

CMC increased dehumanization in decision making

(Lee et al., 2015b).

When using a zoomorphic, mechanistic, or cari-

caturistic image for a telerobot, measures should be

taken to mitigate dehumanization. Encouraging the

display of secondary human emotions such as affec-

tion and admiration may help group participants to

humanize one another (Leyens et al., 2000). Such

emotions could rise as a result of self-disclosure in the

conversation (Kashian et al., 2017), or by discussing

an unrelated case of group suffering (Gubler et al.,

2015). Additionally, the use of visual, auditory, and

intellectual cues that remind the interlocutors of the

human operator could mitigate the effect of a non-

anthropomorphic avatar.

3.3 Designing with Group Salience in

Mind

When participants are aware of their interaction part-

ner’s group membership and if the interaction partner

is regarded as a (typical) representative of his or her

group, positive effects of the interpersonal encounter

are more likely to generalize to the outgroup as a

whole. One approach, suggested by Pettigrew (1998),

is to expose group identities gradually, starting with

a low salience, allowing initial contact to form, and

increasing it over time as the interaction partners es-

tablish an interpersonal relationship.

Group identity can be transmitted through a va-

riety of channels in robotic telepresence, beginning

with the design of the avatar; its appearance, voice,

and its surroundings, and proceeding into the con-

tent of the interaction. A robotic avatar may have

a non-humanoid appearance, but still maintain group

identity through group symbols, cues, and language.

It may speak in a group-speciﬁc language or accent,

wear typical accessories or ﬂaunt national colors. The

freedom to use material objects brings up new de-

sign possibilities that are not available in an online en-

counter. Group cues may be positioned in subtle ways

to be gradually revealed by the interlocutor. If the ini-

tial appearance and behavior of the robot are engaging

enough, an interpersonal bond may form despite the

presence of group-related cues.

3.4 Language Translation

The outstanding beneﬁt of mediated verbal interac-

tion for intergroup contact is the ability to translate

between different languages and dialects (Amichai-

Hamburger, 2012). Often groups in conﬂict do not

speak a common language and are required to speak

in a third language in the language of the advan-

taged/majority group. This situation forms an obsta-

cle to achieving equality in contact. Language trans-

lation may reinforce equality in communication, as

all participants can express themselves in their na-

tive language. Machine translation, however, may

also be destructive to cultural and political nuances

(Lehman-Wilzig, 2000; Cronin, 2012), and contem-

porary deep-learning translators exhibit stylistic and

gender bias based on their training datasets (Hovy

et al., 2020; Stanovsky et al., 2019). Models such

as Timo Honkella’s “peace machine” (Honkela, 2017;

Koulu and Kontiainen, 2019) attempt to resolve this

problem by preserving cultural-dependent meanings

within a translation.

While no data exist on the implications of machine

translation in intergroup contact, human translators

and interpreters often suffer from a lack of trust by

the participants who fear of bias and misinterpreta-

tion (Monz

o-Nebot, 2019); a machine translator may

enfold similar risks. In our initial test for automatic

language translation in contact between minority and

majority groups in Finland, participants enjoyed their

newly acquired ability to speak to one another in their

language, but have raised concerns about being mis-

represented by the machine (Peled, 2019). Further re-

search should focus on implementing and evaluating

feedback mechanisms within the translation process

that may reduce the fear of misinterpretation.

3.5 Public Space Interventions

Robots can transcend both physical borders set by

governments and online borders set by IT corpo-

rations (Del Vicario et al., 2016). They have the

potential to reach crowds that would not normally

engage in intergroup contact. One might consider

whether the group identity of the telerobot’s opera-

tor should be widely exposed to passersby, allowing

them to make a voluntary decision to approach, or

whether they should only realize it during the con-

versation. A meta-analysis by Pettigrew et al. (2011)

concluded that in contacts that had a negative out-

come, it was worse when initiated involuntarily. How-

ever, when the group identity is known, members may

avoid interaction (Wessel, 2009), which results in a

self-selection bias in organized interventions between

groups (Maoz, 2011). A balanced approach may work

well here: Some cues could be exposed, providing

only subtle hints about the telerobot’s identity, allow-

ing passersby to approach an intergroup encounter

voluntarily.

CHIRA 2020 - 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

214

4 DISCUSSION

The guidelines set forth in this article provide a foun-

dation for further research and implementation of an

innovative medium for intergroup contact. Any or-

ganized forms of intergroup contact should always be

questioned and scrutinized regarding its internal moti-

vation, especially in the context of violent, asymmet-

ric conﬂict. When involving technology, a transparent

and fully open-source strategy should be employed

to expose inherent biases and avoid concentrations of

power. The practice of Co-Design can increase the in-

volvement of minority groups in the process, dissem-

inate technological knowledge, and reduce the notion

of a higher power from above coming to restore peace

without perceiving the situation and its nuances.

Moreover, Groom et al. showed that operators had

a greater sense of self-extension to a robot that was as-

sembled by them, rather than another (Groom et al.,

2009). Robots were also successfully co-designed

with children as the target users (Alves-Oliveira et al.,

2017; Henkemans et al., 2016), and co-design meth-

ods improved the general attitude of students toward

robots in educational settings (Reich-Stiebert et al.,

2019).

Toward the ﬁrst installment of telepresence robots

in sensitive conﬂict situations, beneﬁts and risks are

to be carefully evaluated in dedicated focus groups

and with A/B testing of particular features and inter-

actions. We look forward to unveiling the potential of

telepresence robots for intergroup contact in further

research, ultimately leading to positive social change.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S. (2000). Strange Encounters : Embodied Others

in Post-Coloniality. Routledge, London.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-

Wesley, Oxford, England.

Alves-Oliveira, P., Arriaga, P., Paiva, A., and Hoffman, G.

(2017). YOLO, a Robot for Creativity: A Co-Design

Study with Children. In Proceedings of the 2017 Con-

ference on Interaction Design and Children, pages

423–429, Stanford California USA. ACM.

Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2012). Reducing intergroup con-

ﬂict in the digital age. The handbook of intergroup

communication, pages 181–193.

Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Hasler, B. S., and Shani-Sherman,

T. (2015). Structured and unstructured intergroup con-

tact in the digital age. Computers in Human Behavior,

52:515–522.

Bao, G., Fang, H., Chen, L., Wan, Y., Xu, F., Yang, Q., and

Zhang, L. (2018). Soft robotics: Academic insights

and perspectives through bibliometric analysis. Soft

robotics, 5(3):229–241.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self.

Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2):139.

Bente, G., R

uggenberg, S., Kr

amer, N. C., and Eschen-

burg, F. (2008). Avatar-Mediated Networking: In-

creasing Social Presence and Interpersonal Trust in

Net-Based Collaborations. Human Communication

Research, 34(2):287–318.

Brown, R. and Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative the-

ory of intergroup contact. Advances in experimental

social psychology, 37(37):255–343.

Burgoon, J. K. and Hoobler, G. D. (1994). Nonverbal

signals. Handbook of interpersonal communication,

2:229–285.

Campanella, T. (2000). Eden by wire: Webcameras and the

telepresent landscape. pages 22–46.

Casanueva, J. and Blake, E. (2001). The effects of avatars

on co-presence in a collaborative virtual environment.

Choi, J. J. and Kwak, S. S. (2016). Can you feel me?:

How embodiment levels of telepresence systems af-

fect presence. In 2016 25th IEEE International Sym-

posium on Robot and Human Interactive Communica-

tion (RO-MAN), pages 606–611, New York, NY, USA.

IEEE.

Choi, J. J. and Kwak, S. S. (2017). Who is this?: Identity

and presence in robot-mediated communication. Cog-

nitive Systems Research, 43:174–189.

Chouliaraki, L. (2011). ‘Improper distance’: Towards a crit-

ical account of solidarity as irony. International Jour-

nal of Cultural Studies, 14(4):363–381.

Cole, J., Sacks, O., and Waterman, I. (2000). On the immu-

nity principle: A view from a robot. Trends in Cogni-

tive Sciences, 4(5):167.

Cook, S. W. (1962). The systematic analysis of socially sig-

niﬁcant events: A strategy for social research. Journal

of Social Issues, 18(2):66–84.

Cronin, M. (2012). Translation in the Digital Age. Rout-

ledge, ﬁrst edition.

Del Vicario, M., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A.,

Caldarelli, G., and Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). Echo

chambers: Emotional contagion and group polariza-

tion on facebook. Scientiﬁc reports, 6:37825.

Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and education. In The Edu-

cational Forum, volume 50, pages 241–252. Taylor &

Francis.

Dolezal, L. (2009). The Remote Body: The Phenomenol-

ogy of Telepresence and Re-Embodiment. Human

Technology, 5(November):208–226.

Eckert, C., Isaksson, O., Hallstedt, S., Malmqvist, J.,

onnb

ack, A.

O., and Panarotto, M. (2019). Indus-

try Trends to 2040. In Proceedings of the Design So-

ciety: International Conference on Engineering De-

sign, volume 1, pages 2121–2128. Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.

Fink, J. (2012). Anthropomorphism and human likeness

in the design of robots and human-robot interaction.

In International Conference on Social Robotics, pages

199–208. Springer.

Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self:

Implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cogni-

tive Sciences, 4(1):14–21.

Gallagher, S. (2006). How the Body Shapes the Mind.

Clarendon Press.

Goffman, E. (2008). Behavior in Public Places. Simon and

Schuster.

The Potential of Telepresence Robots for Intergroup Contact

215

Groom, V., Takayama, L., Ochi, P., and Nass, C. (2009).

I am my robot: The impact of robot-building and

robot form on operators. In Proceedings of the

4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human

Robot Interaction - HRI ’09, page 31, La Jolla, Cali-

fornia, USA. ACM Press.

Gubler, J. R., Halperin, E., and Hirschberger, G. (2015).

Humanizing the Outgroup in Contexts of Protracted

Intergroup Conﬂict. Journal of Experimental Political

Science, 2(1):36–46.

Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J.

Y. C., de Visser, E. J., and Parasuraman, R. (2011). A

Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-

Robot Interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(5):517–

527.

Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An Integrative Re-

view. Personality and Social Psychology Review,

10(3):252–264.

Hasler, B. S. and Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2013). Online

Intergroup Contact. In Amichai-Hamburger, Y., edi-

tor, The Social Net, pages 220–252. Oxford University

Press.

Hasler, B. S., Hirschberger, G., Shani-Sherman, T., and

Friedman, D. A. (2014). Virtual Peacemakers:

Mimicry Increases Empathy in Simulated Contact

with Virtual Outgroup Members. Cyberpsychology,

Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(12):766–771.

Hasson, Y., Schori-Eyal, N., Landau, D., Hasler, B. S.,

Levy, J., Friedman, D., and Halperin, E. (2019).

The enemy’s gaze: Immersive virtual environ-

ments enhance peace promoting attitudes and emo-

tions in violent intergroup conﬂicts. PLOS ONE,

14(9):e0222342.

Henkemans, O. B., Neerincx, M., Pal, S., Van Dam, R.,

Hong, J. S., Oleari, E., Pozzi, C., Sardu, F., and Sac-

chitelli, F. (2016). Co-Design of the Pal Robot and

Avatar That Perform Joint Activities with Children

for Improved Diabetes Self-Management. New York:

IEEE Press.

Hirano, T., Shiomi, M., Iio, T., Kimoto, M., Nagashio, T.,

Tanev, I., Shimohara, K., and Hagita, N. (2016). Com-

munication Cues in a Human-Robot Touch Interac-

tion. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Con-

ference on Human Agent Interaction - HAI ’16, pages

201–206, Biopolis, Singapore. ACM Press.

Honkela, T. (2017). Rauhankone: Teko

alytutkijan testa-

mentti.

Hourcade, J. P. and Bullock-Rest, N. E. (2011). HCI for

peace: A call for constructive action. In Proceedings

of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems - CHI ’11, page 443, Vancouver,

BC, Canada. ACM Press.

Hovy, D., Bianchi, F., and Fornaciari, T. (2020). Can You

Translate that into Man? Commercial Machine Trans-

lation Systems Include Stylistic Biases. In Proceed-

ings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for

Computational Linguistics.

Hwang, J., Sangyup Lee, Sang Chul Ahn, and Hyoung-

gon Kim (2008). Augmented robot agent: Enhanc-

ing co-presence of the remote participant. In 2008 7th

IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and

Augmented Reality, pages 161–162, Cambridge, UK.

IEEE.

Johnson, N. A., Cooper, R. B., and Chin, W. W. (2009).

Anger and ﬂaming in computer-mediated negotia-

tion among strangers. Decision Support Systems,

46(3):660–672.

Kabiljo, L. (2019). Virtual Reality Fostering Empathy:

Meet the Enemy. Studies in Art Education, 60(4):317–

320.

Kashian, N., Jang, J.-w., Shin, S. Y., Dai, Y., and Walther,

J. B. (2017). Self-disclosure and liking in computer-

mediated communication. Computers in Human Be-

havior, 71:275–283.

Kenworthy, J. B., Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., and Voci,

A. (2005). Intergroup contact: When does it work,

and why. On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after

Allport, pages 278–292.

Kerruish, E. (2017). Affective Touch in Social Robots.

Transformations (14443775), (29).

Kilteni, K., Groten, R., and Slater, M. (2012). The Sense of

Embodiment in Virtual Reality. Presence: Teleopera-

tors and Virtual Environments, 21(4):373–387.

Koulu, R. and Kontiainen, L. E. (2019). How Will AI Shape

the Future of Law?

Kteily, N., Hodson, G., and Bruneau, E. (2016). They

see us as less than human: Metadehumanization pre-

dicts intergroup conﬂict via reciprocal dehumaniza-

tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

110(3):343–370.

Kuwamura, K., Minato, T., Nishio, S., and Ishiguro,

H. (2012). Personality distortion in communication

through teleoperated robots. In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN:

The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot

and Human Interactive Communication, pages 49–54,

Paris, France. IEEE.

Lala, D., Inoue, K., and Kawahara, T. (2019). Smooth

Turn-taking by a Robot Using an Online Continuous

Model to Generate Turn-taking Cues. In 2019 Inter-

national Conference on Multimodal Interaction, ICMI

’19, pages 226–234, Suzhou, China. Association for

Computing Machinery.

Lee, H., Kim, Y.-H., Lee, K.-k., Yoon, D.-K., and You, B.-J.

(2015a). Designing the appearance of a telepresence

robot, M4K: A case study. In International Workshop

on Cultural Robotics, pages 33–43. Springer.

Lee, M. K., Fruchter, N., and Dabbish, L. (2015b). Making

Decisions From a Distance: The Impact of Techno-

logical Mediation on Riskiness and Dehumanization.

In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Com-

puter Supported Cooperative Work & Social Comput-

ing - CSCW ’15, pages 1576–1589, Vancouver, BC,

Canada. ACM Press.

Lehman-Wilzig, S. (2000). The Tower of Babel vs the

power of babble: Future political, economic and cul-

tural consequences of synchronous, automated trans-

lation systems (SATS). New Media & Society,

2(4):467–494.

Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes,

J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez-Perez, A., and Gaunt, R.

(2000). The Emotional Side of Prejudice: The Attri-

bution of Secondary Emotions to Ingroups and Out-

groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review,

4(2):186–197.

Lin, S.-F. (2011). Effect of Opponent Type on Moral

Emotions and Responses to Video Game Play. Cy-

berpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,

14(11):695–698.

CHIRA 2020 - 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

216

Lorenz, T., Weiss, A., and Hirche, S. (2016). Synchrony and

Reciprocity: Key Mechanisms for Social Companion

Robots in Therapy and Care. International Journal of

Social Robotics, 8(1):125–143.

Malafouris, L. (2013). How Things Shape the Mind. MIT

Press.

Maoz, I. (2005). Evaluating the Communication between

Groups in Dispute: Equality in Contact Interventions

between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Negotiation Jour-

nal, 21(1):131–146.

Maoz, I. (2011). Does contact work in protracted asymmet-

rical conﬂict? Appraising 20 years of reconciliation-

aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestini-

ans. Journal of Peace Research, 48(1):115–125.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2013). Phenomenology of Perception.

Routledge.

Michaud, F., Boissy, P., Labonte, D., Corriveau, H., Grant,

A., Lauria, M., Cloutier, R., Roux, M.-A., Iannuzzi,

D., and Royer, M.-P. (2007). Telepresence Robot for

Home Care Assistance. In AAAI Spring Symposium:

Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive

Robotics, pages 50–55. California, USA.

Minsky, M. (1980). Telepresence.

Monz

o-Nebot, E. (2019). Translators and interpreters as

agents of diversity. Managing myths and pursuing jus-

tice in postmonolingual societies. Translating and In-

terpreting Justice in a Postmonolingual Age, page 9.

Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., and Kageki, N. (2012). The

Uncanny Valley [From the Field]. IEEE Robotics Au-

tomation Magazine, 19(2):98–100.

Nagendran, A., Steed, A., Kelly, B., and Pan, Y. (2015).

Symmetric telepresence using robotic humanoid sur-

rogates: Robotic symmetric telepresence. Computer

Animation and Virtual Worlds, 26(3-4):271–280.

Nash, K. (2018). Virtual reality witness: Exploring the

ethics of mediated presence. Studies in Documentary

Film, 12(2):119–131.

Ogawa, K., Nishio, S., Koda, K., Taura, K., Minato, T.,

Ishii, C. T., and Ishiguro, H. (2011). Telenoid:

Tele-presence android for communication. In ACM

SIGGRAPH 2011 Emerging Technologies on - SIG-

GRAPH ’11, pages 1–1, Vancouver, British Columbia,

Canada. ACM Press.

Peled, A. (2019). Soft Robotic Incarnation. PhD thesis,

Aalto University.

Penny, S. (1993). Virtual Bodybuilding. Media Information

Australia, 69(1):17–22.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual

review of psychology, 49(1):65–85.

Pettigrew, T. F. and Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic

test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personal-

ity and Social Psychology, 90(5):751–783.

Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., and Christ, O.

(2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact the-

ory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

35(3):271–280.

Reich-Stiebert, N., Eyssel, F., and Hohnemann, C. (2019).

Involve the user! Changing attitudes toward robots

by user participation in a robot prototyping process.

Computers in Human Behavior, 91:290–296.

Schumann, S., Klein, O., Douglas, K., and Hewstone, M.

(2017). When is computer-mediated intergroup con-

tact most promising? Examining the effect of out-

group members’ anonymity on prejudice. Computers

in Human Behavior, 77:198–210.

Sirouspour, S. and Setoodeh, P. (2005). Multi-

operator/multi-robot teleoperation: An adaptive non-

linear control approach. In 2005 IEEE/RSJ Interna-

tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,

pages 1576–1581. IEEE.

oeffner, J. and Nam, C. S. (2007). Co-presence in shared

virtual environments: Avatars beyond the opposition

of presence and representation. In International Con-

ference on Human-Computer Interaction, pages 949–

958. Springer.

Spears, R., Postmes, T., Lea, M., and Wolbert, A. (2002).

When are net effects gross products? Communication.

Journal of Social Issues, 58(1):91–107.

Spiegel, J. S. (2018). The Ethics of Virtual Reality Technol-

ogy: Social Hazards and Public Policy Recommenda-

tions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5):1537–

1550.

Stanovsky, G., Smith, N. A., and Zettlemoyer, L. (2019).

Evaluating gender bias in machine translation. arXiv

preprint arXiv:1906.00591.

Steuer, J. (1992). Deﬁning Virtual Reality: Dimensions De-

termining Telepresence. Journal of Communication,

42(4):73–93.

Stiehl, W., Lieberman, J., Breazeal, C., Basel, L., Lalla, L.,

and Wolf, M. (2005). Design of a therapeutic robotic

companion for relational, affective touch. In ROMAN

2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Hu-

man Interactive Communication, 2005., pages 408–

415, Nashville, TN, USA. IEEE.

Tanaka, F., Takahashi, T., Matsuzoe, S., Tazawa, N., and

Morita, M. (2014). Telepresence robot helps children

in communicating with teachers who speak a different

language. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE In-

ternational Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

- HRI ’14, pages 399–406, Bielefeld, Germany. ACM

Press.

Thrun, S. (2004). Toward a Framework for Human-Robot

Interaction. Human–Computer Interaction, 19(1-

2):9–24.

Voci, A. and Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup Contact and

Prejudice Toward Immigrants in Italy: The Media-

tional Role of Anxiety and the Moderational Role of

Group Salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Rela-

tions, 6(1):37–54.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication:

Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interac-

tion. Communication research, 23(1):3–43.

Walther, J. B., Hoter, E., Ganayem, A., and Shonfeld, M.

(2015). Computer-mediated communication and the

reduction of prejudice: A controlled longitudinal ﬁeld

experiment among Jews and Arabs in Israel. Comput-

ers in Human Behavior, 52:550–558.

Wessel, T. (2009). Does Diversity in Urban Space Enhance

Intergroup Contact and Tolerance? Geograﬁska An-

naler: Series B, Human Geography, 91(1):5–17.

White, F. A., Harvey, L. J., and Abu-Rayya, H. M. (2015).

Improving Intergroup Relations in the Internet Age:

A Critical Review. Review of General Psychology,

19(2):129–139.

The Potential of Telepresence Robots for Intergroup Contact

217