Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2017
-
(2017): The Influence of Politeness Behavior on User Compliance with Social Robots in a Healthcare Service Setting. In: International Journal of Social Robotics 9 (5), S. 727-743. DOI: 10.1007/s12369-017-0420-0
Abstract: Particularly in the healthcare service domain, social robots are expected to be good assistants, advisers, or practitioners. To increase the effectiveness of healthcare services provided by social robots, patients must comply with their requests. Research is plentiful on what makes patients comply with healthcare advice. In this paper, which is based on Bulgurcu's study of rationality-based beliefs, command-compliance theory, and social exchange theory, we propose a research model of compliance during interaction with social robots, examining beliefs about and overall assessments of the consequences of complying with robot requests and extending the findings of previous studies to the setting of healthcare services. We specifically investigate the perceived level of politeness in robots' speech and gestures as a determinant of compliance intention. Using a social robot, NAO, as a provider of healthcare services, we conducted an experiment. The results suggest that the aforementioned theories are useful in understanding user behaviors toward social robots in a healthcare service setting. Interestingly, and unlike in other settings, the perceived level of politeness of a social robot in a healthcare service setting negatively affects the perceived benefit of compliance, and, hence, intention to comply. A lower politeness level is closer to a command or strong recommendation than a suggestion or causal recommendation, which is common in shopping, tourism, or convention settings. The findings of this study imply that polite behavior from a social robot is an important factor in the compliance of healthcare service users. Direct speech with polite gestures is the most effective way to increase patient compliance in with healthcare advice provided by social robots in healthcare settings. However, higher levels of politeness do not always increase patients' intention to comply.
Keywords: Assistenztechnik, Befehle/eindringliche Empfehlung als Marker für Unhöflichkeit, Compliance, Disziplin, doppelter Treffer, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, human-robot interaction, Ingenieurswissenschaft, Interaktionspartner, Medizin, Mensch oder Maschine, Mensch-Technik-Relationen (MTR), polite social interaction, Politeness, Politeness Theory, Realtechnik, Robotics, Serviceroboter, Social exchange theory, Social robot, Soziale Angemessenheit, Soziale Robotik, Technik, Technikbezug 2010
-
(2010): Face in interaction. In: Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8), S. 2073-2077. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013 Abstract: Face has become firmly established as a key concept not only in pragmatics but also in anthropology, sociolinguistics, communication studies, sociology, psychology, and other related fields. Yet while it was Goffman (1955) who first introduced the notion, it has been Brown and Levinson’s (1987) application of face in the context of politeness theory that has dominated much of the debate thus far. Such discussions have often centred on the validity of Brown and Levinson’s notion of face for explicating politeness across various cultural contexts (Gu, 1990; Ide, 1989; Matsumoto, 1988; Nwoye, 1992; Pizziconi, 2003). The continuing controversy as to whether or not honorifics in Modern Standard Japanese are indeed examples of a failure of Brown and Levinson’s theory is a case in point. On the one hand, there is the often cited argument by Matsumoto (1988) that ‘‘what is of paramount importance to a Japanese is not his/her territory [negative face], but the position in relation to others in the group and his/her acceptance by others’’ (p. 405). On the other hand, other scholars have argued that Brown and Levinson’s notion of face can in fact be applied to the study of honorifics, and thus politeness, in Modern Standard Japanese (Fukada and Asato, 2004; Fukushima, 2000; Ishiyama, 2009; Usami, 2002). In these latter approaches, however, Brown and Levinson’s notions of positive and negative face are reduced to an undifferentiated notion that can be ‘‘lost’’ or ‘‘saved’’ (Haugh, 2005:44). It appears that what may actually be fuelling such (endless) controversies is the continued conflation of politeness with face. In this special issue, then, while acknowledging the important role face plays in politeness and impoliteness research, it is suggested that the time has come for face to be theorized on its own terms. In this way, echoing Bargiela-Chiappini’s (2003) re-opening of discussion about face, (new) insights may be gained into these (old) debates.
Keywords: Angesicht, Brown, Brown and Levinson's model, Face, Face (general), Gesichtswahrung, Goffman, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Honorifics, (Im)Politeness Research, Levinson, Linguistik, Politeness, Politeness Theory, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sprachgebrauch, Überblick, Übersicht zu Politeness Theory
- <<
- <
- 1