Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Engagement Is Not Transfer: A Withdrawal Study of a Consumer Social Robot with Autistic Children at Home

Yibo Meng, Guangrui Fan, Bingyi Liu, Yingfangzhong Sun, Ruiqi Chen, Haipeng Mi

Abstract

This study examines whether engagement with social robots translates into improved human-directed social abilities in autistic children. We conducted an 8-week home-based randomized controlled trial with 40 children aged 5--9 using a commercial social robot (Qrobot). Families were assigned to either continued robot access or robot withdrawal. Quantitative measures and caregiver interviews assessed anxiety, social motivation, emotion inference, and empathy. Results showed that continued robot access significantly reduced anxiety, confirming strong affective benefits and high usability. However, children in the withdrawal group demonstrated greater improvements in social motivation, emotion understanding, and empathic behaviors toward caregivers and peers. Qualitative findings revealed a "handoff versus siloing" pattern: withdrawal promoted reorientation toward human social interaction, while continued access concentrated engagement within the child--robot dyad and limited transfer to real-world contexts. We interpret these results as evidence that high engagement does not guarantee social transfer.

Engagement Is Not Transfer: A Withdrawal Study of a Consumer Social Robot with Autistic Children at Home

Abstract

This study examines whether engagement with social robots translates into improved human-directed social abilities in autistic children. We conducted an 8-week home-based randomized controlled trial with 40 children aged 5--9 using a commercial social robot (Qrobot). Families were assigned to either continued robot access or robot withdrawal. Quantitative measures and caregiver interviews assessed anxiety, social motivation, emotion inference, and empathy. Results showed that continued robot access significantly reduced anxiety, confirming strong affective benefits and high usability. However, children in the withdrawal group demonstrated greater improvements in social motivation, emotion understanding, and empathic behaviors toward caregivers and peers. Qualitative findings revealed a "handoff versus siloing" pattern: withdrawal promoted reorientation toward human social interaction, while continued access concentrated engagement within the child--robot dyad and limited transfer to real-world contexts. We interpret these results as evidence that high engagement does not guarantee social transfer.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 42 sections, 5 figures, 7 tables.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Related Work and Conceptual Framework
  3. What the Field Often Optimizes: Engagement, Acceptability, and Short-Horizon Outcomes
  4. What Children Need: Transfer, Generalization, and Caregiver-Mediated Ecologies
  5. The Robot as an Affective Regulator: Comfort Benefits and the "Predictability Trade-off"
  6. Ethical and Ecological Stakes of In-Home Social Agents for Children
  7. Conceptual Framework: Engagement Is Not Transfer
  8. Methods
  9. Study Design Overview
  10. Intervention Technology: Qrobot Platform and Home Deployment Context
  11. Qrobot as a Commercial Off-the-Shelf Social Robot
  12. Hardware and Embodiment
  13. Interaction Modalities and System Architecture
  14. Study-Relevant Interaction Characteristics
  15. Participants and Recruitment
  16. ...and 27 more sections

Figures (5)

  • Figure 1: Study timeline and data collection schedule.
  • Figure 2: Participant flow diagram (CONSORT-style).
  • Figure 3: Usability and engagement context for interpreting downstream outcomes. (A) Distribution of SUS total scores (T3; continued-access group). (B) SUS item-level mean scores (1--5). Panels (C--D) contextualize the "high usability $\neq$ transfer" paradox and the scaffold-versus-substitute pathways.
  • Figure 4: Enhanced trajectories across outcome domains for continued access (robot access) versus withdrawal. Panels D--E show anxiety outcomes (SCARED and RCADS; lower is better).
  • Figure 5: Effect size analysis illustrating the cross-domain trade-off pattern. (A) Cohen's $d$ at T3 with 95% confidence intervals. (B) Effect-size trajectories across time. (C) Transfer outcomes at T3. (D) Statistical summary. For anxiety outcomes, negative $d$ indicates lower (better) scores under continued access; for transfer outcomes, negative $d$ indicates lower (worse) human-oriented scores under continued access.