Emotional attachment to robots could affect outcome on battlefield

Sep 17, 2013 by Doree Armstrong
A United States Army explosive ordnance disposal robot pulls the wire of a suspected improvised explosive device in Iraq. Credit: U.S. Navy photo by Journalist 1st Class Jeremy L. Wood.

(Phys.org) —Too busy to vacuum your living room? Let Roomba the robot do it. Don't want to risk a soldier's life to disable an explosive? Let a robot do it.

It's becoming more common to have robots sub in for humans to do dirty or sometimes dangerous work. But researchers are finding that in some cases, people have started to treat robots like pets, friends, or even as an extension of themselves. That raises the question, if a attaches human or animal-like characteristics to a field robot, can it affect how they use the robot? What if they "care" too much about the robot to send it into a dangerous situation?

That's what Julie Carpenter, who just received her UW doctorate in education, wanted to know. She interviewed Explosive Ordnance Disposal – highly trained soldiers who use robots to disarm explosives – about how they feel about the robots they work with every day. Part of her research involved determining if the relationship these soldiers have with field robots could affect their decision-making ability and, therefore, mission outcomes. In short, even though the robot isn't human, how would a soldier feel if their robot got damaged or blown up?

What Carpenter found is that troops' relationships with robots continue to evolve as the technology changes. Soldiers told her that attachment to their robots didn't affect their performance, yet acknowledged they felt a range of emotions such as , anger and even when their field robot was destroyed. That makes Carpenter wonder whether outcomes on the could potentially be compromised by human-robot attachment, or the feeling of self-extension into the robot described by some operators. She hopes the military looks at these issues when designing the of field robots.

Carpenter, who is now turning her dissertation into a book on human-robot interactions, interviewed 23 explosive ordnance personnel – 22 men and one woman – from all over the United States and from every branch of the military.

These troops are trained to defuse chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, as well as roadside bombs. They provide security for high-ranking officials, including the president, and are a critical part of security at large international events. The soldiers rely on robots to detect, inspect and sometimes disarm explosives, and to do advance scouting and reconnaissance. The robots are thought of as important tools to lessen the risk to human lives.

Some soldiers told Carpenter they could tell who was operating the robot by how it moved. In fact, some robot operators reported they saw their robots as an extension of themselves and felt frustrated with technical limitations or mechanical issues because it reflected badly on them.

The pros to using robots are obvious: They minimize the risk to human life; they're impervious to chemical and biological weapons; they don't have emotions to get in the way of the task at hand; and they don't get tired like humans do. But robots sometimes have technical issues or break down, and they don't have humanlike mobility, so it's sometimes more effective for soldiers to work directly with explosive devices.

Researchers have previously documented just how attached people can get to inanimate objects, be it a car or a child's teddy bear. While the personnel in Carpenter's study all defined a robot as a mechanical tool, they also often anthropomorphized them, assigning robots human or animal-like attributes, including gender, and displayed a kind of empathy toward the machines.

"They were very clear it was a tool, but at the same time, patterns in their responses indicated they sometimes interacted with the robots in ways similar to a human or pet," Carpenter said.

Many of the soldiers she talked to named their robots, usually after a celebrity or current wife or girlfriend (never an ex). Some even painted the robot's name on the side. Even so, the soldiers told Carpenter the chance of the robot being destroyed did not affect their decision-making over whether to send their robot into harm's way.

Soldiers told Carpenter their first reaction to a robot being blown up was at losing an expensive piece of equipment, but some also described a feeling of loss.

"They would say they were angry when a robot became disabled because it is an important tool, but then they would add 'poor little guy,' or they'd say they had a funeral for it," Carpenter said. "These robots are critical tools they maintain, rely on, and use daily. They are also tools that happen to move around and act as a stand-in for a team member, keeping Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel at a safer distance from harm."

The robots these soldiers currently use don't look at all like a person or animal, but the military is moving toward more human and animal lookalike robots, which would be more agile, and better able to climb stairs and maneuver in narrow spaces and on challenging natural terrain. Carpenter wonders how that human or animal-like look will affect soldiers' ability to make rational decisions, especially if a soldier begins to treat the robot with affection akin to a pet or partner.

"You don't want someone to hesitate using one of these robots if they have feelings toward the that goes beyond a tool," she said. "If you feel emotionally attached to something, it will affect your decision-making."

Explore further: New RFID technology helps robots find household objects

Related Stories

Dogs' behavior could help to design social robots

Sep 12, 2013

Designers of social robots, take note. Bring your dog to the lab next time you test a prototype, and watch how your pet interacts with it. You might just learn a thing or two that could help you fine-tune ...

DARPA to invest in iRobot's inflatable robot arm

Aug 22, 2012

(Phys.org) -- In military operations there are a lot of things that need to be done besides fighting, and the US government is hoping to offload as much of those things as possible to robots. To that end, ...

Recommended for you

New RFID technology helps robots find household objects

Sep 22, 2014

Mobile robots could be much more useful in homes, if they could locate people, places and objects. Today's robots usually see the world with cameras and lasers, which have difficulty reliably recognizing ...

Victoria team defend title with speedy robot

Sep 22, 2014

A team from Victoria's School of Engineering and Computer Science, led by Robby Lopez, beat 15 other teams from Australian and New Zealand universities to take top honours in the 2013 competition with its ...

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kochevnik
1 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2013
Hitler was so enamored of emotional attachment to inanimate objects that he ordered the invention of the Bar-Bee to service Nazi servicemen. If soldiers fall in love with their tools and stop killing, only the banksters will suffer
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2013
Oh cortana... my love...
nesch
5 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2013
This is my robot. There are many like it, but this one is mine...
Humpty
1 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2013
When one's loved one cops some shrapnel and springs a leak.....

"Oh Woe is ME - All it not lost, I know the tyre shop has some spare patches! Please hold on a little longer - I am almost finished!!

alfie_null
5 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2013
How about other products of technology? Like ships, aircraft, tanks, etc. Were they perceived differently when they were new technology, than they are perceived now? For new technology, how about UASs and their operators. Does the remoteness affect feelings of attachment?