Patterns of Dyadic Interaction

A pattern is a reiterative sequence of behavioral units in the same order. The behavioral patterns have an empirical anchorage, a particular unit that explains the temporal link of a whole sequence. In our system, the patterns of dyadic interaction are defined as sequences of coordinated or contingent action between children and Pleo. From our theoretical assumptions we hypothesize that successful sequences of contingent behavior have a central role not only at cognitive level –as a mean of interpreting and reinterpreting perceptions and categorizations of Pleo status and performance- but as well as a reinforcement of bond forming. These sequences imply the child bidding Pleo and the robot responding accordingly.

Our approach goes in line with Pitsch proposal to apply conversational analyses to systematic study of children interacting with Pleo (Pitsch & Koch, 2010). This perspective includes the context as a part of the object of study and regards interaction as a dialogue between the child and Pleo where any behavior unit draws its meaning from the flow of the interaction in a particular scenario, one action making another action contingently relevant composing a meaningful sequence in terms of functionality in the pretend play (i.e. feeding or playing).

We agree with Pitsch that

While questionnaires/interviews and coding of videotaped HRI (of measures such a physical distance, contact or body position) are able to reveal a general attitude towards these systems, but they won’t be able to take into account the interactional practices which participants use to explore the system, whether/how their behavior and their perception might change over time and which features of the robot’s conduct they might treat as relevant for their categorizations.

(Pitsch & Koch, 2010).

Dyadic patterns unfold following an internal structure: they are initiated by a child’s bid –based or not in a particular antecedent Pleo’s behavior- that is followed by a Pleo’s contingent response. Differently from the children’s behavior category Attempts at Reciprocity, in a Dyadic Pattern these attemps should be followed by a contingent response by Pleo. This dialog requires some previous experience to acquire enough “social competence” to coordinate the sequences of actions with Pleo successfully, with or without external help (i.e. peers’ or adults’

hints that act as facilitators).

According to our model of bonding dynamics, the identification of these sequences is especially relevant by two reasons. First, because they imply that the robot is regarded by the child as an animate social-situated entity that is able to engage with her in re-occurring interactional patterns (Pitsch & Koch, 2010). Secondly, because in our model, the experience of successful

(i.e. meaningful) sequences of interaction is the most powerful reinforcement of engagement and bonding.

4.6.1. Categorization Criteria

Dyadic Patterns are classified into Epimeletic/etepimeletic sequences (i.e. feeding and taking care), Play and Agonistic behaviors. This categorization responds to a functional criteria and divides the patterns according to their meaning in a owner-pet space for interaction.

It is important to notice that Pleo’s ability to respond contingently is restricted to four behavioral displays: opening the mouth and biting, snuggling notably when hugged and pressed to the bosom, slowing down the movements when been caressed and contorting when been treated roughly. Taking and releasing with the mouth is a meaningful response in feeding and play sequences (i.e. tug). Concurrent vocalization as Chew when Mouthing a piece of food, or Purr when hugged, help to make sense and emphasize the whole sequence but are very difficult to register from the observer position. Thus, we do not include vocalizations in the sequence analyses, though its unquestionable communicative value (see Section 4.4.1. Categorization criteria).

It is important to point out that these behaviors may or may not occur contingently to children’s specific bids (e.g. present/offer; stroke). Therefore, only sometimes Pleo’s response meets children expectancies because contingent responses do not appear deterministically after every instance of children’s initiating behaviors. This pattern of not deterministic contingency is a very specific situation, -probably not very different from owner-puppy interaction when trying to train new skills or obedient responses-. This situation is critical in our model because the lack of consistence in Pleo’s behavior not only difficult children understanding of Pleo’s behavior and mind but also can provoke frustration, boredome or disengagment (see a discussion on Dyadic Patterns in Section 4.7.2.2. Results).

4.6.2. Inventory

Table 4-16 Sequences of Child-Pleo contingent behaviors

Category Description

1. EPIMELETIC/

ETEPIMELETIC

Complementary behaviors of care and attention giving and attention getting and care soliciting and showing content

1.1.Feed (CH) Offer- (PL) Open the mouth - (CH) Put in the Mouth - (PL) Take (chew) Most frequently the feeding sequence is initiated by Pleo opening the mouth or the child presenting/offering an object putting it close to Pleo’s mouth or mussel. The child move may be followed by Pleo orienting to and/or opening the mouth or withdrawing as rejecting (turns the head away from the piece of food or gadget or object presented). There could be many sequences of offering that eventually can end by the child putting the object into Pleo’s mouth with or without helping/forcing (i.e. opening the mouth with the hands or separating the jaws pushing the object through them). The third step is Pleo’s mouthing the object with their jaws completely and the child releasing it. The third step is Pleo keeping the object in the bite and uttering chewing sounds.

1.2.Cuddle (CH) Press to bosom/In Lap- (PL) Snuggle

The child hold close to the body Pleo in an affectionate manner, hug tenderly and eventually rocking it, while Pleo flexes the legs allowing full contact with the body while slowing the movements and getting quiet and calm, snuggling pressing closely against, as for comfort or from affection and eventually purr in content

1.3.Rock (CH) Press to bosom/In Lap- (PL) Snuggle (and eventually) fall asleep

Similar to Cuddle but rocking Pleo to sleep. Pleo rests quiet and closes the eyes and eventually purrs or snorts.

1.4.Caress (CH) Stroke- (PL) Calm down

Pleo pushes into child stroke or responds to soft chin-scratch jut out its chin and close the eyes (and eventually purrs) as in content, appeasing the movements and lowing the vocalizations.

2. PLAY (CH) Put in the Mouth-(PL) Take-(CH) Pull- (PL) Strive to keep

Child and Pleo engage in a content tugging, struggling exerting opposed forces to pull and keep something that Pleo mouths vigorously.

3. AGONISTIC (CH) Hold by the tail / restrain forcefully- (PL) Contort

When Pleo is suspended downwards by the tail and shaken or restrained forcefully for instant in a tight hug, it struggles agitatedly and vigorously or contort as in panic or rage, for instance while is forcefully restrained.

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

Figure 4-30 Epimeletic/ Etepimeletic > Feed

a) b)

Figure 4-31 Agonistic > Hold by the tail/Contort