Robots sociales y crecimiento ético en Educación Infantil

Autores/as

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2023.83.2697

Palabras clave:

Robot social, preescolar, ética, desarrollo socioemocional, acoso.

Resumen

Durante los últimos años ha incrementado el desarrollo de robots sociales educativos. Estos robots favorecen vínculos afectivos positivos y aumentan el bienestar socioemocional de los estudiantes, sin embargo, tanto los niños como los adultos han demostrado potencial para tratar a los robots sociales de manera abusiva. Para lograr interacciones robot-humano favorables y mejorar las interacciones humanas surge la necesidad de crear comportamientos robóticos cada vez más empáticos al tiempo que se garanticen las condiciones óptimas de una educación orientada al crecimiento ético de los estudiantes. El objetivo de esta revisión es analizar qué componentes del diseño robótico facilitan o debilitan las interacciones socioemocionales entre los niños de edad preescolar y los robots antropomórficos. Se realizó una búsqueda exhaustiva en las bases de datos Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, IEEE Xplore y ACM Digital Library siguiendo los criterios establecidos en la declaración PRISMA. Los resultados sugieren que la apariencia de un robot destinado para niños en edad preescolar necesitaría equilibrar la "humanidad" y la "robotidad" para que ambos estimulen interacciones sociales placenteras y prevengan falsas creencias sobre las capacidades del robot, lo que probablemente disuadiría al niño de participar en conductas abusivas que podrían ser perjudiciales en otros contextos.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Breazeal, C., Harris, P. L., DeSteno, D., Kory Westlund, J. M., Dickens, L., y Jeong, S. (2016). Young Children Treat Robots as Informants. Topics in cognitive science, 8(2), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12192

Brink, K. A., y Wellman, H. M. (2020). Robot teachers for children? Young children trust robots depending on their perceived accuracy and agency. Developmental psychology, 56(7), 1268–1277. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000884

Brščić, D., Kidokoro, H., Suehiro, Y., y Kanda, T. (2015). Escaping from Children’s Abuse of Social Robots, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696468

Burdett, E. R., Ikari, S., y Nakawake, Y. (2022). British Children’s and Adults’ Perceptions of Robots. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3813820

Cameron, D., Fernando, S., Millings, A., Szollosy, M., Collins, E., Moore, R., ... y Prescott, T. (2016, June). Congratulations, it’s a boy! Bench-marking children’s perceptions of the robokind Zeno-R25. In Annual Conference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems (pp. 33-39). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40379-3_4

Cheng, C. C., Huang, K. H., y Huang, S. M. (2017). Exploring young children’s images on robots. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 9(4), https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814017698663

Damiano, L., y Dumouchel, P. (2018). Anthropomorphism in Human-Robot Co-evolution. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 468. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00468

Darling, K. (2016). Extending legal protection to social robots: The effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects. In Robot law. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783476732.00017

Di Dio, C., Manzi, F., Peretti, G., Cangelosi, A., Harris, P. L., Massaro, D., y Marchetti, A. (2020). Shall I trust you? From child–robot interaction to trusting relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 469. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00469

Druga, S., Williams, R., Park, H. W., y Breazeal, C. (2018, June). How smart are the smart toys? Children and parents' agent interaction and intelligence attribution. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 231-240). https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3202741

Flanagan, T., Rottman, J., y Howard, L. H. (2021). Constrained Choice: Children's and Adults’ Attribution of Choice to a Humanoid Robot. Cognitive Science, 45(10), e13043. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13043

Gómez-León, M.I (2022). Desarrollo de la empatía a través de la Inteligencia Artificial Socioemocional. Papeles del Psicólogo, 43(3), 218-224. https://doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol.2996

Hubbard, L., Ding, S., Le, V., Kim, P., y Yeh, T. (2021, July). Voice Design to Support Young Children’s Agency in Child-Agent Interaction. In CUI 2021-3rd Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (pp. 1-10). https://doi.org/10.1145/3469595.3469604

Ioannou, A., Andreou, E., y Christofi, M. (2015). Pre-schoolers’ interest and caring behaviour around a humanoid robot. TechTrends, 59(2), 23-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0835-0

Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., y Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1-2), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_4

Keijsers, M., y Bartneck, C. (2018, March). Mindless robots get bullied. In 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 205-214). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171266

Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., y Belpaeme, T. (2015). The robot who tried too hard: social behaviour of a robot tutor can negatively affect child learning. In ACMIEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 67–74). New York: Assoc Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696457

Kim, M., Yi, S., y Lee, D. (2019). Between living and nonliving: Young children's animacy judgments and reasoning about humanoid robots. PloS one, 14(6), e0216869. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216869

Lemaignan, S., Fink, J., Mondada, F., y Dillenbourg, P. (2015, October). You’re doing it wrong! studying unexpected behaviors in child-robot interaction. In International conference on social robotics (pp. 390-400). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_39

Martin, D. U., Perry, C., MacIntyre, M. I., Varcoe, L., Pedell, S., y Kaufman, J. (2020). Investigating the nature of children's altruism using a social humanoid robot. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, Article 106149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.025

Melson, G. F., Kahn, Jr, P. H., Beck, A., y Friedman, B. (2009). Robotic pets in human lives: Implications for the human–animal bond and for human relationships with personified technologies. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 545-567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01613.x

Nomura, T., Uratani, T., Kanda, T., Matsumoto, K., Kidokoro, H., Suehiro, Y., y Yamada, S. (2015, March). Why do children abuse robots? In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction extended abstracts (pp. 63-64). https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.02nom

Okanda, M., y Taniguchi, K. (2021). Is a robot a boy? Japanese children’s and adults’ gender-attribute bias toward robots and its implications for education on gender stereotypes. Cognitive Development, 58, 101044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2021.101044

Oostenbroek, J., y Over, H. (2015). Young children contrast their behavior to that of out-group members. Journal of experimental child psychology, 139, 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.05.009

Oranç, C., y Küntay, A.C. (2020). Children’s perception of social robots as a source of information across different domains of knowledge. Cognitive Development, 54, 100875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100875

Sandygulova, A., y O'Hare, G. M. (2015, March). Children's responses to genuine child synthesized speech in child-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (pp. 81-82). https://doi.org/10.1145/2701973.2702058

Sciutti, A., Rea, F., y Sandini, G. (2014, August). When you are young,(robot's) looks matter. Developmental changes in the desired properties of a robot friend. In The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (pp. 567-573). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926313

Sommer, K., Nielsen, M., Draheim, M., Redshaw, J., Vanman, E. J., y Wilks, M. (2019). Children’s perceptions of the moral worth of live agents, robots, and inanimate objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 187, 104656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.06.009

Song-Nichols, K., y Young, A. (2020). Gendered Robots Can Change Children's Gender Stereotyping. Cognitive Science. https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/cogsci20/papers/0588/index.html

Tanaka, F., Cicourel, A., y Movellan, J. R. (2007). Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(46), 17954–17958. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707769104

Tielman, M., Neerincx, M., Meyer, J. J., y Looije, R. (2014, March). Adaptive emotional expression in robot-child interaction. In 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 407-414). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559663

Wiese, E., Metta, G., y Wykowska, A. (2017). Robots As Intentional Agents: Using Neuroscientific Methods to Make Robots Appear More Social. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1663. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663

Williams, R., Machado, C. V., Druga, S., Breazeal, C., y Maes, P. (2018, June). " My doll says it's ok" a study of children's conformity to a talking doll. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 625-631). https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3210788

Yamamoto, K., Tanaka, S., Kobayashi, H., Kozima, H., y Hashiya, K. (2009). A non-humanoid robot in the “uncanny valley”: experimental analysis of the reaction to behavioral contingency in 2–3 year old children. PloS one, 4(9), e6974. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006974

Descargas

Publicado

20-03-2023

Cómo citar

Gómez-León, M. I. (2023). Robots sociales y crecimiento ético en Educación Infantil. Edutec, Revista Electrónica De Tecnología Educativa, (83), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2023.83.2697

Número

Sección

Sección: Tecnologías digitales en educación:poniendo el foco en la ética