Value change through information exchange in human–machine interaction

If you have found this article useful and you think it is important that researchers across the world have access, please consider donating, to ensure that this valuable collection remains Open Access.

Prometheus is published by Pluto Journals, an Open Access publisher. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles from our international collection of social science journals. Furthermore Pluto Journals authors don’t pay article processing charges (APCs).

scite_

Prometheus

Volume 38, Issue 1

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Value change through information exchange in human–machine interaction

research-article

Author(s): Orsolya Friedrich , Selin Gerlek , Johanna Seifert , Sebastian Schleidgen

Publication date Pub: 01 June 2022

Journal: Prometheus

Publisher: Pluto Journals

Bookmark

Abstract

An essential component of human–machine interaction (HMI) is the information exchanged between humans and machines to achieve specific effects in the world or in the interacting machines and/or humans. However, such information exchange in HMI may also shape the beliefs, norms and values of involved humans. Thus, ultimately, it may shape not only individual values, but also societal ones. This article describes some lines of development in HMI, where significant value changes are already emerging. For this purpose, we introduce the general notion of eValuation, which serves as a starting point for elaborating three specific forms of value change, namely deValuation, reValuation and xValuation. We explain these along with examples of self-tracking practices and the use of social robots.

Content

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (doi): 10.13169/prometheus.38.1.0057

Title: Prometheus

Abbreviated Title: PROM

Publisher: Pluto Journals

ISSN (Electronic): 1470-1030

Publication date Pub: 01 June 2022

Publication date Collection: 2022

Volume: 38

Issue: 1

Electronic Location Identifier: prometheus.38.1.0057

Author notes

Contact: orsolya.friedrich@ 123456fernuni-hagen.de

Accepting Editor: Tristan de Wildt

Article

DOI: 10.13169/prometheus.38.1.0057

SO-VID: d5b1a245-3fda-4e61-98af-af3d7ed88cef

License:

All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

History

Page count

Pages: 10

References

M. BarrettE. ObornW. Orlikowski (2016) ‘Creating value in online communities: the sociomaterial configuring of strategy, platform, and stakeholder engagement’, Information Systems Research, 27, 4, pp.704–23. doi:[Cross Ref].
G. Bateson (2000) Steps to an Ecology of Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
L ChuH.-W. ChenP.-Y. ChengP. HoI.-T. WengP.-L. Yang et al. (2019) ‘Identifying features that enhance older adults. Acceptance of robots: a mixed methods study’, Gerontology, 65, 4, pp.441–50. doi:[Cross Ref].
L. DamianoP. Dumouchel (2018) ‘Anthropomorphism in human–robot co-evolution’, Frontiers in Psychology, 9, paper 468. doi:[Cross Ref].
B. de Boer (2020) ‘Experiencing objectified health: turning the body into an object of attention’, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 23, 3, pp. 401–11.
B. de Boer (2021) ‘Explaining multistability: postphenomenology and affordances of technologies’, AI and Society, 6 September.
S. Duttweiler (2018) ‘Daten statt worte?! Bedeutungsproduktion in digitalen selbstvermessungspraktiken’ in T. MämeckeJ.-H. PassothJ. Wehner (eds) Bedeutende Daten: Modelle, Verfahren und Praxis der Vermessung und Verdatung im Netz, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp.251–76. doi:[Cross Ref].
L. Floridi (2005) ‘Is semantic information meaningful data?’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70, 2, pp.351–70. doi:[Cross Ref].
L. Floridi (2009) ‘Philosophical conceptions of information’ in G. Sommaruga-Rosolemos (ed.) Formal Theories of Information: From Shannon to Semantic Information Theory and General Concepts of Information, Springer, Berlin, pp.13–53. doi:[Cross Ref].
O. FriedrichE. RacineS. SteinertJ. PömslR. Jox (2021) ‘An analysis of the impact of brain–computer interfaces on autonomy’, Neuroethics, 14, 1, pp.17–29. doi:[Cross Ref].
S. GerlekK. KapplerE. Noji (2018) ‘Digitale medien in leiblichen praktiken’ in G. Rebane (ed.) Identität und Kulturelle Praktiken im Digitalen Zeitalter, Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg, pp.59–73.
K. GoherN. MansouriS. Fadlallah (2017) ‘Assessment of personal care and medical robots from older adults’ perspective’, Robotics Biomimicry. doi:[Cross Ref].
P. HancockD. BillingsK. SchaeferJ. ChenE. de VisserR. Parasuraman (2011) ‘Meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction’, Human Factors, 53, 5, pp.517–27. doi:[Cross Ref].
J. Havens (2015) Hacking H(app)iness: Why your Personal Data Counts and How Tracking it can Change the World, Tarcher Penguin, New York.
T. HendlB. JanskyV. Wild (2019) ‘From design to data handling: why mHealth needs a feminist perspective’ in J. LohM. Coeckelbergh (eds) Feminist Philosophy of Technology, J. B. Metzler, Berlin, pp.77–103.
L. Hogle (2005) ‘Enhancement technologies and the body’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 1, pp.695–716. doi:[Cross Ref].
R. Jones (2017) ‘What makes a robot “social”?’, Social Studies of Science, 47, 4, pp.556–79. doi:[Cross Ref].
D. LoganC. BreazealM. GoodwinS. JeongB. O’ConnellD. Smith-Freedman et al. (2019) ‘Social robots for hospitalized children’, Pediatrics. doi:[Cross Ref].
W.-Y. LouieD. McCollG. Nejat (2014) ‘Acceptance and attitudes toward a human-like socially assistive robot by older adults’, Assistive Technology, 26, 3, pp.140–50. doi:[Cross Ref].
D. Lupton (2013) ‘Quantifying the body: monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies’, Critical Public Health, 23, 4, pp.393–403. doi:[Cross Ref].
D. Lupton (2015) ‘Quantified sex: a critical analysis of sexual and reproductive self-tracking using apps’, Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17, 4, pp.440–53. doi:[Cross Ref].
D. Lupton (2021) ‘Language matters: the “digital twin” metaphor in health and medicine’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 47, 6, paper 409. doi:[Cross Ref].
P. KahnH. IshiguroB. FriedmanT. Kanda (2006) ‘What is a human? Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human-robot interaction’, Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp.364–71. doi:[Cross Ref].
T. PrescottJ. Robillard (2020) ‘Are friends electric? The benefits and risks of human–robot relationships’, iScience, 24 1, paper 101993. doi:[Cross Ref].
H. RobinsonB. MacDonaldE. Broadbent (2014) ‘The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: a review’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 4, pp.575–91. doi:[Cross Ref].
L. RoyakkersQ. van Est (2015) ‘A literature review on new robotics: automation from love to war’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 5, pp.549–70.
C. ShannonW. Weaver (1975) The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
N. SharkeyA. Sharkey (2010) ‘The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal’, Information Systems, 11, 2, pp.161–90. doi:[Cross Ref].
Y. TuS. ChienS. Yeh (2020) ‘Age-related differences in the uncanny valley effect’, Gerontology, 66, 4, pp.382–92. doi:[Cross Ref].
S. Turkle (2011) Alone Together: Why we Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, Basic Books, New York.
P. Verbeek (2015) ‘Beyond interaction: a short introduction to mediation theory’, Interactions, 22, 3, pp.26–31. doi:[Cross Ref].
J. Wajcman (2015) Pressed for Time: The Acceleration of Life in Digital Capitalism, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
R. WiegardM. Breitner (2019) ‘Smart services in healthcare: a risk-benefit-analysis of pay-as-you-live services from customer perspective in Germany’, Electron Markets, 29, 1, pp.107–23. doi:[Cross Ref].
Y. Wul J. WrobeM. CornuetH. KerhervéS. DamnéeA. Rigaud (2014) ‘Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human–robot interaction over a 1-month period in the Living Lab setting’, Clinical Interventions in Aging, 9, pp.801–11. doi:[Cross Ref].
P. Zelazo (2013) Self and Other, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
M. ZimmermanB. Bradley (2019) Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value, available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/ (accessed July 2021).
J. ZłotowskiD. ProudfootK. YogeeswaranC. Bartneck (2015) ‘Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 3, pp.347–60. doi:[Cross Ref].

Comments

Comment on this article

[1] M. BarrettE. ObornW. Orlikowski (2016) ‘Creating value in online communities: the sociomaterial configuring of strategy, platform, and stakeholder engagement’, Information Systems Research, 27, 4, pp.704–23. doi:[Cross Ref].

[2] G. Bateson (2000) Steps to an Ecology of Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[3] L ChuH.-W. ChenP.-Y. ChengP. HoI.-T. WengP.-L. Yang et al. (2019) ‘Identifying features that enhance older adults. Acceptance of robots: a mixed methods study’, Gerontology, 65, 4, pp.441–50. doi:[Cross Ref].

[4] L. DamianoP. Dumouchel (2018) ‘Anthropomorphism in human–robot co-evolution’, Frontiers in Psychology, 9, paper 468. doi:[Cross Ref].

[5] B. de Boer (2020) ‘Experiencing objectified health: turning the body into an object of attention’, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 23, 3, pp. 401–11.

[6] B. de Boer (2021) ‘Explaining multistability: postphenomenology and affordances of technologies’, AI and Society, 6 September.

[7] S. Duttweiler (2018) ‘Daten statt worte?! Bedeutungsproduktion in digitalen selbstvermessungspraktiken’ in T. MämeckeJ.-H. PassothJ. Wehner (eds) Bedeutende Daten: Modelle, Verfahren und Praxis der Vermessung und Verdatung im Netz, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp.251–76. doi:[Cross Ref].

[8] L. Floridi (2005) ‘Is semantic information meaningful data?’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70, 2, pp.351–70. doi:[Cross Ref].

[9] L. Floridi (2009) ‘Philosophical conceptions of information’ in G. Sommaruga-Rosolemos (ed.) Formal Theories of Information: From Shannon to Semantic Information Theory and General Concepts of Information, Springer, Berlin, pp.13–53. doi:[Cross Ref].

[10] O. FriedrichE. RacineS. SteinertJ. PömslR. Jox (2021) ‘An analysis of the impact of brain–computer interfaces on autonomy’, Neuroethics, 14, 1, pp.17–29. doi:[Cross Ref].

[11] S. GerlekK. KapplerE. Noji (2018) ‘Digitale medien in leiblichen praktiken’ in G. Rebane (ed.) Identität und Kulturelle Praktiken im Digitalen Zeitalter, Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg, pp.59–73.

[12] K. GoherN. MansouriS. Fadlallah (2017) ‘Assessment of personal care and medical robots from older adults’ perspective’, Robotics Biomimicry. doi:[Cross Ref].

[13] P. HancockD. BillingsK. SchaeferJ. ChenE. de VisserR. Parasuraman (2011) ‘Meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction’, Human Factors, 53, 5, pp.517–27. doi:[Cross Ref].

[14] J. Havens (2015) Hacking H(app)iness: Why your Personal Data Counts and How Tracking it can Change the World, Tarcher Penguin, New York.

[15] T. HendlB. JanskyV. Wild (2019) ‘From design to data handling: why mHealth needs a feminist perspective’ in J. LohM. Coeckelbergh (eds) Feminist Philosophy of Technology, J. B. Metzler, Berlin, pp.77–103.

[16] L. Hogle (2005) ‘Enhancement technologies and the body’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 1, pp.695–716. doi:[Cross Ref].

[17] R. Jones (2017) ‘What makes a robot “social”?’, Social Studies of Science, 47, 4, pp.556–79. doi:[Cross Ref].

[18] D. LoganC. BreazealM. GoodwinS. JeongB. O’ConnellD. Smith-Freedman et al. (2019) ‘Social robots for hospitalized children’, Pediatrics. doi:[Cross Ref].

[19] W.-Y. LouieD. McCollG. Nejat (2014) ‘Acceptance and attitudes toward a human-like socially assistive robot by older adults’, Assistive Technology, 26, 3, pp.140–50. doi:[Cross Ref].

[20] D. Lupton (2013) ‘Quantifying the body: monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies’, Critical Public Health, 23, 4, pp.393–403. doi:[Cross Ref].

[21] D. Lupton (2015) ‘Quantified sex: a critical analysis of sexual and reproductive self-tracking using apps’, Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17, 4, pp.440–53. doi:[Cross Ref].

[22] D. Lupton (2021) ‘Language matters: the “digital twin” metaphor in health and medicine’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 47, 6, paper 409. doi:[Cross Ref].

[23] P. KahnH. IshiguroB. FriedmanT. Kanda (2006) ‘What is a human? Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human-robot interaction’, Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp.364–71. doi:[Cross Ref].

[24] T. PrescottJ. Robillard (2020) ‘Are friends electric? The benefits and risks of human–robot relationships’, iScience, 24 1, paper 101993. doi:[Cross Ref].

[25] H. RobinsonB. MacDonaldE. Broadbent (2014) ‘The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: a review’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 4, pp.575–91. doi:[Cross Ref].

[26] L. RoyakkersQ. van Est (2015) ‘A literature review on new robotics: automation from love to war’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 5, pp.549–70.

[27] C. ShannonW. Weaver (1975) The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

[28] N. SharkeyA. Sharkey (2010) ‘The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal’, Information Systems, 11, 2, pp.161–90. doi:[Cross Ref].

[29] Y. TuS. ChienS. Yeh (2020) ‘Age-related differences in the uncanny valley effect’, Gerontology, 66, 4, pp.382–92. doi:[Cross Ref].

[30] S. Turkle (2011) Alone Together: Why we Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, Basic Books, New York.

[31] P. Verbeek (2015) ‘Beyond interaction: a short introduction to mediation theory’, Interactions, 22, 3, pp.26–31. doi:[Cross Ref].

[32] J. Wajcman (2015) Pressed for Time: The Acceleration of Life in Digital Capitalism, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[33] R. WiegardM. Breitner (2019) ‘Smart services in healthcare: a risk-benefit-analysis of pay-as-you-live services from customer perspective in Germany’, Electron Markets, 29, 1, pp.107–23. doi:[Cross Ref].

[34] Y. Wul J. WrobeM. CornuetH. KerhervéS. DamnéeA. Rigaud (2014) ‘Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human–robot interaction over a 1-month period in the Living Lab setting’, Clinical Interventions in Aging, 9, pp.801–11. doi:[Cross Ref].

[35] P. Zelazo (2013) Self and Other, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[36] M. ZimmermanB. Bradley (2019) Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value, available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/ (accessed July 2021).

[37] J. ZłotowskiD. ProudfootK. YogeeswaranC. Bartneck (2015) ‘Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 3, pp.347–60. doi:[Cross Ref].

Prometheus

Value change through information exchange in human–machine interaction

Journal

Author notes

Article

History

Page count

Categories

Comment on this article