Blog #6: Sherry Turkle - Robotics and cybercompanionship

http://web.mit.edu/sturkle/www/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Relational%20Artifacts.pdf

Sherry Turkle: Relational Artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship

Relational artifacts: “…artifacts that present themselves as having ‘states of mind’ for which an understanding of those states enriches human encounters with them.” (pg 1) aka sociable robots aka My Real Baby, Furby, Aibo, Paro, Kismet and Cog.

As the title would imply, this is an article about a comparative study of robots (relational artifacts) and the complex relationships formed with them by children and elders, specifically elders in a nursing home. In approaching this study, researched focused on two ideas:

1. Robots as Rorschach – how the relationship with robots has an effect on people emotionally and cognitively and how individuals use that relationship to express things about themselves. (psychological)
and
2. Robot as an evocative object – how the relationship with the robot lends focus to questions of “aliveness” and “about the roles of thought and feeling in defining human uniqueness.” (pg 1) (philosophical)

Previous studies done in the 1980’s found that technological objects like Speak and Spell and Merlin were primarily presented to children for cognitive use, whereas, when presented with a relational artifact, children were compelled (bc of the nature of the object: ie Furby, Aibo, or My Real Baby) to nurture it or be nurtured. There was a shift from a more cognitive understanding and use of the object to an emotional or affective one. The same held true for elders. “For robotics, nurturance is the new ‘killer app’. We connect to what we nurture.” (pg 3)

In the past studies have shown that animals have calming effects for people. Researchers were looking to see if seniors would get similar benefits with Aibo (dog)and Paro (baby harp seal) in that they might help lower stress and anxiety. Although the research done with elders found comparable effects, children were found to treat it (Aibo) like they would a stuffed animal but respond to it as if it were a real dog.

Methods of study focused on observation and conversation in natural settings: how does the technology have bearing on their personalities, life history and cognitive style? Although it was first thought that there would be a clear distinction between the robots as Rorschach and as evocative objects, it was found that the two were actually entwined. Children and elders were forming philosophical attachments that weren’t separated from their emotional needs. As previously noted, cast studies revolved around children and elders. I broke these down so you could get a better idea of the kinds of results found and see the correlations between the psychological and philosophical effects they had on the children and seniors.

Case studies with children:
Orelia (10 yrs) takes home an Aibo. Orelia makes clear distinctions about the Aibo; it is a robot and incapable of love. She would prefer a real dog because unlike the Aibo a real dog has a brain and a heart and can clearly love her, whereas Aibo has the potential to be programmed to love, but it wouldn’t be real because it is a robot. Researchers found that her younger brother had more of a connection to the Aibo as if it could be capable of emotional reciprocation…or at least he questioned if it is capable of that. Orelia felt the robot could not be trusted bc of its lack of real feeling and memory. Researchers found that Orelia's concept and lack of feeling towards the Aibo was a correlation with her relationship with her mother; cold and ungiving.

Melanie, also 10 yrs old, had a much different relationship with her temporary custody of Aibo and a My Real Baby. Researchers found that Melanie formed an emotional attachment to these robots choosing to nurture them and in return believed they loved her back. For her, they filled a void in her life that was neglected by her parents, who worked alot and left her and her sibling primarily with babysitters and nannies. This has a profound effect on her relationship with the Aibo and MRB (which she named Sophie). By nurturing and loving them, it fulfilled a void in her life that she needed. To her, Aibo and Sophie were almost real, with feelings and consciousness of Melanie's tender care of them.

Jimmy is a 1st grader with a serious illness. Researchers found that Jimmy approached the Aibo as if it were real; having consciousness and emotions. He compares the Aibo with his real dog, Sam, finding that Aibo is the better dog because it can do things that Sam cannot (like fetch or kick a ball). To Jimmy, Aibo is immortal and invincible, unable to get sick and/or die, which is something Jimmy wishes for himself. “Jimmy’s emotional connection to the medical technology that keeps him alive helps to explain his identification with Aibo and his philosophical position that robots, too, have a ‘kind of life’.” (pg 8)

Case study with seniors:

Jonathan is a 74 year old man with no family. He was given a My Real Baby. Like Orelia, Jonathan approached the relational artifact from more of an analytical perspective. He was fascinated with the way it worked (like an engineer) but made a clear delineation between real and robotic. Although MRB was just another object to him, Jonathan felt that the real benefit was in his ability to talk to MRB in a way he could not with real people. From a therapeutic perspective, Jonathan felt he could open up more to MRB because it would not judge or ridicule him about personal thoughts or events in his life. Psychologically this would prove to be very beneficial, giving Jonathan an opportunity to find closure or at least comfort in being able to discuss very private matters. However, at the end of the day, Jonathan still saw MRB as an object, incapable of love and emotions. At night he would turn it off and put it away in the closet. To him, it was a fascinating toy.

Andy, on the other hand, viewed MRB like Melanie did. Similar to Jonathan, Andy found comfort in being able to talk to MRB, but he established an emotional connection to it; wanting to nurture and love it and felt that in a way, it would love him back. He was tender and protective of MRB.



TwendyOne

Researchers found that, “Relational artifacts, as objects between the living and not living (Ramey, 2005) may have special resonance for their frail nursing home playmates. The residents themselves experience their existence in the home as a placement on the boundary between their own lives and their deaths. Like relational artifacts, they are luminal creatures.” (pg 13)

Unlike MRB, Furby, Aibo and Paro, MIT robots Kismet and Cog both have the ability to respond to “I love you” by saying “I love you.” This has led to questions of the level of authenticity we might desire or require from technology. What kind of bearing will relational artifacts have on children and elders? Is it healthy to allow this kind of authentic technology with children? What kinds of relationships are appropriate for children and elders to have with relational artifacts? These are all very good questions, an as technology continues to evolve, I think it's something we should all ask ourselves. We've seen movies like iRobot and have fabricated ideas of what technology could one day present to us. It will be interesting to see what really happens. Bottom line, I personally don't feel like a robot could ever take the place of human affection and attention. I wish Sherry Turkle and her entourage of researchers had studied seniors from a retirement community as opposed to a nursing home. (or at least include retirement communities in their studies). I wonder if the results would have been different.