Relational Appliances: A Robot in the Refrigerator for Home-Based Health Promotion
Organizations: Northeastern University
Abstract
Kitchen appliances are frequently used domestic artifacts situated at the point of everyday dietary decision making, making them a promising but underexplored site for health promotion. We explore the concept of relational appliances: everyday household devices designed as embodied social actors that engage users through ongoing, personalized interaction. We focus on the refrigerator, whose unique affordances, including a fixed, sensor-rich environment, private interaction space, and close coupling to food items, support contextualized, conversational engagement during snack choices. We present an initial exploration of this concept through a pilot study deploying an anthropomorphic robotic head inside a household refrigerator. In a home-lab apartment, participants repeatedly retrieved snacks during simulated TV "commercial breaks" while interacting with a human-sized robotic head. Participants were randomized to either a health-promotion condition, in which the robot made healthy snack recommendations, or a social-chat control condition. Outcomes included compliance with recommendations, nutritional quality of selected snacks, and psychosocial measures related to acceptance of the robot. Results suggest that participants found the robot persuasive, socially engaging, and increasingly natural over time, often describing it as helpful, aware, and companionable. Most participants reported greater awareness of their snack decisions and expressed interest in having such a robot in their own home. We discuss implications for designing relational appliances that leverage anthropomorphism, trust, and long-term human-technology relationships for home-based health promotion.
Figures & tables
| Survey item | Anchor 1 | Anchor 7 | Mean | SD | |
| How satisfied are you with the robot? | Not at all | Very much | 5.76 | 1.09 | |
| How much would you like to continue working with the robot? | Not at all | Very much | 6.24 | 0.94 | |
| How much do you like the robot? | Not at all | Very much | 6.19 | 0.93 | |
| How easy was it to interact with the robot? | Very difficult | Very easy | 5.62 | 1.20 | |
| How much do you trust the robot? | Not at all | Very much | 5.52 | 1.25 | |
| How knowledgeable was the robot? | Not at all | Very knowledgeable | 5.95 | 1.28 |
| Overall | CONTROL | INTERVENTION | Between-Group Test | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | ||||
| Perceived Usefulness | 5.08 | 1.46 | 4.03 | 1.63 | 5.73 | 0.91 | 3.08 | 19 | ||
| Perceived Ease of Use | 5.95 | 0.99 | 5.79 | 1.10 | 6.05 | 0.95 | 0.57 | 19 | n.s. | |
| Perceived Enjoyment | 6.08 | 0.82 | 5.74 | 1.10 | 6.29 | 0.55 | 1.55 | 19 | n.s. | |
| Attitude Towards Using | 5.75 | 1.39 | 5.25 | 1.49 | 6.06 | 1.29 | 1.32 | 19 | n.s. | |
| Intention to Use | 5.83 | 1.25 | 5.57 | 1.14 | 5.87 | 1.35 | 0.21 | 19 | n.s. | |
Human-Robot Interaction
Human-robot interaction studies how people and robots communicate, coordinate, and safely work or live together.
See all 452 papers