Social Roles in Human-Machine Communication: Conceptualization of the Subject Area

Introduction. The article presents the rationale for identifying a special subject area in human-machine communication research – studying it as a social role interaction. Key provisions for describing the relational mechanism for the emergence of social roles in the performance of human-machine communication agents are formulated. Data on expert examinations of the use of artificial intelligence technologies in human-machine communication are used.

Methodology and sources. The study is based on the relational paradigm of explaining the nature of the phenomenon of social roles in human-machine communication, arising and constructed exclusively in the space of their interactions. For conceptualization, the concepts of social role, role simulation, role imitation, imitation, assimilation, relation, situational action are proposed. Expert reports on the study of human communications with artificial intelligence devices were used as sources.

Results and discussion. It has been established that human social roles and machine functions are formed in the process of mutual simulation, imitation, emulation and assimilation taking into account the situation. A person as a communicator is included in the performance of two roles, but performs one of them, which arises in communication. Two roles are combined into one – a social role, which can be performed only by both participants together and in a special hybrid format of communication. The nature of the sociality of these roles is in the communication situation.

Conclusion. The relational mechanism of the emergence of social roles in the performance of a person and a machine is manifested in a change in human behavior and a modification of machine functions. When performing social roles, technomorphization of human behavior and anthropo(socio)morphization of machine functioning occur. A person rethinks the role of a communicator, changing its meaning upon contact with the technical form of activity of the machine-communicator. The role turns into a synthesis of anthropo- and technomorphic manifestations. The machine begins to be present as an agent and declares itself by demands to take into account its specificity. A person strives not to lose the social basis of his their behavior, and at the same time is forced to adapt to the options of the machine.

1. Suchman, L. (2019), Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication, Transl. by Maksimova, A.S., Elementarnye formy, Moscow, RUS.

2. Nass, C., Steer, J. and Tauber, E.R. (1994), “Computers are social actors”, Proc. of the SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, USA, 24–28 Apr. 1994, pp. 72–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703.

3. Fogg, B.J. and Nass, C. (1997), “How users reciprocate to computers: An experiment that demonstrates behav-ior change”, CHI'97 extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 22–27 March 1997, pp. 331–332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1120212.1120419.

4. Breazeal, C. (2002), “Regulation and Entrainment in Human-Robot Interaction”, Int. J. of Experimental Robotics Research, vol. 21, iss. 10–11, pp. 883–902. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/027836490202101009.

5. Sandry, E. (2015), Robots and communication, Palgrave Macmillan, NY, USA.

6. Lee, S.A., Liang, Y., Cho, S. (2016), “Effects of anthropomorphism and reciprocity in persuasive computer agents”, NCA 102nd Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, Philadelphia, PA, USA,10–13 Nov. 2016.

7. Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Spence, P.R. and Westerman, D. (2016), “Initial interaction expectations with robots: Testing the human-to-human interaction script”, Communication Studies, vol. 67, iss. 2, pp. 227–238. DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2015.1121899.

8. Davydov, A.A. “Social Robotics and Systems Sociology”, FCTAS RAS, available at: https://www.isras.ru/Davydov_Robotics.html?printmode (accessed 25.02.2023).

9. Bartneck, C. and Forlizzi, J. (2004), “A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction”, ROMAN 2004. 13th IEEE Int. Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Kurashiki, JPN, 20–22 Sep. 2004, pp. 591–594. DOI: 10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374827.

10. Hegel, F., Muh, C., Wrede, B. et al. (2009), “Understanding social robots”, ACHI '09: Proc. of the 2009 Second Int. Conf. on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, Cancun, MEX, 1–7 Feb. 2009, pp. 169–174. DOI: 10.1109/ACHI.2009.51.

11. Guzman, A.L. (2022), Human-Machine Communication. Rethinking Communication, Technology, and Ourselves, Transl. by Morozova, A.M., Gumanitarnyi Tsentr, Khar'kov, UKR.

12. Vasilkova, V.V. and Legostaeva, N.I. (2021), “Bots in Public Arenas of Social Networks”, Sociological J., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 99–117. DOI: 10.19181/socjour.2021.27.4.8647.

13. Abramov, R.N. and Katechkina, V.M. (2022), “Social aspects of human-robot interaction: experimental research experience”, The J. of Sociology and Social Anthropology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 214–243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2022.25.2.9.

14. Gasumova, S.E. and Porter, L. (2019), “Robotization of the social sphere”, Sociology of Science and Technology, no. 1, pp. 79–94. DOI: 10.24411/2079-0910-2018-10006.

15. Zilberman, N.N. (2014), “Functional classification of social robots”, Gumanitarnaya informatika [Humanitarian informatics], in Mozhaeva, G.V. and Zilberman, N.N. (eds.), no. 8, pp. 30–39.

16. Ignatyev, V.I. and Spiridonova, K.I. (2022), “”Human - Social Robot” Interaction: Through Overcoming Barriers to Hybrid Communication”, DISCOURSE, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 101–115. DOI: 10.32603/2412-8562-2022-8-6-101-115.

17. Ignatyev, V.I. and Spiridonova, K.I. (2023), “The Problem of Technoanthropic Dichotomy of the Project “Social Robot”: Ontosynthesis in Communication”, Sociology of Science and Technology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 92–107. DOI: 10.24412/2079-0910-2023-2-92-107.

18. Donati, P. (2019), Relational Theory of Society: Social Life from a Perspective of Critical Realism, Kostrova, E.A. (comp.), PSTGU Publishing House, Moscow, RUS.

19. Archer, M. (1994), “Realism and morphogenesis”, Transl. by Oberemko, O.A. and Filippov, A.F., Sociological J., no. 4, pp. 50–68.

20. Linton, R. (1936), The Study of Man. An Introduction, Appleton Century Crofts, Inc., NY, USA.

21. Parsons, T. (1937), The Structure of Social Action, McGraw-Hill, NY, USA.

22. Turner, R.H. (1962), “Role-Taking: Process versus Conformity”, Human Behaviour and Social Processes, in Rose, A.M. (ed.), Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 20–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315008196.

23. Aylett, R., Vargas, P. and Sharkey, N. (2022), Life with robots. Living with Robots: What Every Anxious Human Needs to Know, Transl. by Golybinа, I.D., AST, Moscow, RUS.

24. Yonck, R. (2019), Heart of the Machine. Our Future in a World of Artificial Emotional Intelligence, Transl. by Voronovich, E., Eksmo, Moscow, RUS.

25. Wehner, M. (2018), “The International Space Station Is Getting a Floating Al Assistant, and It Sure Looks Familiar”, BGR, 2 March 2018, available at: https://bgr.com/03/02/cimon-iss-ai-space-station-nasa (accessed 05.04.2023).

26. Weizenbaum, J. (2008), “Professor Joseph Weizenbaum: Creator of the 'Eliza' program”, Independent, 18.03.2008, available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/professor-joseph-weizenbaum-creator-of-the-eliza-program-797162.html (accessed 26.03.2023).

27. Hambling, D. (2019), “The US Army Is Creating Robots That Can Follow Orders”, MIT Technology Review, 06.11.2019, available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/11/06/132036/the-us-army-is-creating-robots-that-can-follow-ordersand-ask-if-they-dont-understand/ (accessed 10.10.2024).

28. Chiu, C.-C. et al. (2018), “State-of-the-Art Speech Recognition with Sequence-to-Sequence Models”, 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Calgary, AB, Canada, 15–20 Apr. 2018, pp. 4774–4778. DOI: 10.1109/ICASSP.2018.8462105.

29. Reeves, T.C. (1998), “The Impact of Media and Technology in Schools”, The J. of Art and Design Education, no. 2, pp. 58–63.

30. Edwards, A., Edwards, C., Spence, P.R., Harris, C. and Gambino, A. (2016), “Robots in the classroom: Differences in students' perceptions of credibility and learning between “teacher as robot?” and “robot as teacher””, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 65, pp. 627–634. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.005.

31. Spence, P.R., Westerman, D., Edwards, C. and Edwards, A. (2014), “Welcoming our robot overlords: Initial expectations about interaction with a robot”, Communication Research Reports, vol. 31, iss. 3, pp. 272–280. DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2014.924337.

32. Breazeal, C.L. (2002), Designing Sociable Robots, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

33. Moyle, W. (2011),"The effect of PARO on social engagement, communication, and quality oflife in people with dementia in residential aged care", Plenary address, avi National Dementia Research Forum, Sydney, AUS, 22–23 Sep. 2011, available at: https://dementiaresearch.org.au/wp-content/ uploads/2011/06/DCRC-Forum-2011-Handbook.pdf (accessed 10.10.2024).

34. “Jibo”, Robotsguide.com, available at: https://robotsguide.com/robots/jibo (accessed 10.10.2024).

35. Khandelwal, Radhika (2014), “Kismet the Al Robot”, YouTube, 08.10.2014, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpbCPNoLqd0 (accessed 10.10.2024).

36. Bartneck, C., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T. and Nomura, T. (2007), “The influence of people's culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots”, AI & Society, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 217–230. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-006-0052-7.

37. Nass, C., Moon, Y. and Carney, P. (1999), “Are People Polite to Computers? Responses to Computer-Based Interviewing Systems”, J. of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 29, iss. 5, pp. 1093–1110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00142.x.

38. Frennert, S., Eftring, H. and Östlund, B. (2017), “Case Report: Implications of Doing Research on Socially Assistive Robots in Real Homes”, Int. J. of Social Robotics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 401–415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0396-9.

39. Dolgov, A.Yu., Alač, M. (2017), Social robots: Things or agents?”, Social Sciences and Humanities. Domestic and Foreign Literature. Ser. 11. Sociology, no. 2, pp. 111–115.

40. Hong, A., Lunscher, N., Hu, T. et al. (2021), “A Multimodal Emotional Human-Robot Interaction Architecture for Social Robots Engaged in Bidirectional Communication”, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 5954–5968. DOI: 10.1109/TCYB.2020.2974688.

41. Kor, O., Bieber, G. and Fron, C. (2018), “Perspectives on Social Robots: From the Historic Background to an Experts' View on Future Developments”, PETRA '18: Proc. of the 11th Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference, Corfu, GRC, 26–29 June 2018, pp. 186–193. DOI: 10.1145/3197768.3197774.