“The script for interacting with a human receptionist is cordial whereas the script for interacting with an information kiosk is utilitarian.” In a move that seems straight out of The Office (or Office Space, if you prefer), an employee at the New York City Health Department has been suspended for 20 days for answering the phone in a robot voice.
James Fanelli, at DNAinfo, reports that Ronald Dillon’s customers and bosses were none too pleased. One woman hung up on him, thinking he was actually a robot. Dillon claims he’s being bullied in the workplace, his bosses claim he’s being a poor sport. A judge ruled that his suspension is legal.
But what’s so wrong with talking to a robot on the phone?
It turns out that researchers in all kinds of fields are watching these interactions closely. From tech companies trying to design a better voice for their direction systems, to science fiction filmmakers trying to do a better job of humanizing their robot characters, there is all kinds of research out there about how humans react to robotic voices.
One study, done by Min Kyung Lee at Carnegie Mellon University, used the interaction log for the school’s hallway receptionist robot (yes, they actually have one of those) to examine the different ways people talked to a robotic presence. About half the people who used the Roboceptionist treated it like a human, and the other half treated it like an informational machine—much like a kiosk at the airport.
“One of the interesting things was that whether the users were greeting the robot at the beginning or not, was kind of the indicator of the kind of interaction they would carry out,” Lee told me. In other words, the best predictor for which kind of interaction people would have was whether they said hello to the robot or not. Those who did were polite, asked personal questions, and made small talk. Those who didn’t simply started out with direct commands like “time” or the name of the person they were looking for.
Humans move throughout the world following certain scripts, Lee says in her paper. There’s a specific script for dealing with humans, and a different one for dealing with machines. “The script for interacting with a human receptionist is cordial whereas the script for interacting with an information kiosk is utilitarian.”
One might expect the same to be true for Dillon’s calls. If the caller thinks they’re talking to a robot, they might get to the point faster and cut the small talk. This might indeed have been part of Dillon’s plan—according to Fanelli, Dillon told the judge in his case that he wasn’t a “people person.” What better way (aside from quitting) to avoid banter than by pretending to be a robot?