Article published In:
Socially Acceptable Robot Behavior: Approaches for Learning, Adaptation and EvaluationEdited by Oliver Roesler, Elahe Bagheri, Amir Aly, Silvia Rossi and Rachid Alami
[Interaction Studies 23:3] 2022
► pp. 360–390
Edited by Oliver Roesler, Elahe Bagheri, Amir Aly, Silvia Rossi and Rachid Alami
[Interaction Studies 23:3] 2022
► pp. 360–390
Social appropriateness in HMI
The Five Factors of Social Appropriateness (FASA) Model
Social appropriateness is an important topic – both in the human-human interaction (HHI), and in the human-machine
interaction (HMI) context. As sociosensitive and socioactive assistance systems advance, the question arises whether a machine’s
behavior should include considerations regarding social appropriateness. However, the concept of social appropriateness is
difficult to define, as it is determined by multiple aspects. Thus, to date, a unified perspective, encompassing and combining
multidisciplinary findings, is missing. When translating results from HHI to HMI, it remains unclear whether such insights into
the dynamics of social appropriateness between humans may in fact apply to sociosensitive and socioactive assistance systems. To
shed light on this matter, we propose the Five Factor Model of Social Appropriateness (FASA) which provides a multidisciplinary
perspective on the notion of social appropriateness and its implementation into technical systems. Finally, we offer reflections
on the applicability and ethics of the FASA Model, highlighting both strengths and limitations of the framework.
Keywords: social appropriateness, FASA Model, social robotics, social assistance systems, human-robot interaction, human-machine interaction
Article outline
- Introduction
- Social appropriateness in human-human interaction
- Social appropriateness in human-machine interaction
- The FASA Model
- The five factors of social appropriateness
- Application of the FASA model
- Discussion
- Limitations
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (95)
Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist
36
1, 715–729. 
Ajibo, C. A., Ishi, C. T., & Ishiguro, H. (2021). Advocating Attitudinal Change Through Android Robot’s Intention-Based Expressive Behaviors: Toward WHO COVID-19 Guidelines Adherence. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters,
6
(
4
), 6521–6528.
Avrunin, E., & Simmons, R. (2014). Socially-appropriate approach paths using human data. 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 1037–1042.
Barraquand, R., & Crowley, J. L. (2008). Learning polite behavior with situation models. 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 209–216.
Bellon, J. (2023). Emotions components and understanding in humans and machines. In: Misselhorn, C. et al. (eds): Emotional Machines. Perspectives from Affective Computing and Emotional Human-Machine Interaction. Springer.
Bellon, J., Eyssel, F., Gransche, B., Nähr-Wagener, S., & Wullenkord, R. (2022a). Theory and practice of sociosensitive and socioactive systems. Springer. Available at [URL].
Bellon, J., Gransche, B., Nähr-Wagener, S. (2022b). Soziale Angemessenheit. Forschung zu Kulturtechniken des Verhaltens. Springer.
Bennett, C. C., & Šabanović, S. (2015). The effects of culture and context on perceptions of robotic facial expressions. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems,
16
(
2
). 272–302.
Berger, S., Hatt, H., Ockenfels, A. (2017). Exposure to Hedione increases reciprocity in humans. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience,
11
(
79
). 1–8.
Bicchieri, C., & Chavez, A. (2010). Behaving as expected. Public information and fairness norms. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
23
(
2
). 161–178.
Bolden, G. B. (2011). On the organization of repair in multiperson conversation: The case of “other”-selection in other-initiated repair sequences. Research on Language & Social Interaction,
44
(
3
). 237–262.
Bou, M. P., & Saucier, G. (2016). The conceptual link between social desirability and cultural normativity. International Journal of Psychology,
51
(
6
). 474–480.
Böhle, K., & Bopp, K. (2014). What a vision: The artificial companion. A piece of vision assessment including an expert survey. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies,
10
(
1
). 155–186.
Brown, P. (2015). Politeness and language. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). Elsevier, 326–330.
Busse, D. (2021). Soziale Angemessenheit: Eine Problem-Exposition aus wissensanalytischer Sicht. [Social appropriateness: A exposition of the problem from a science-analytical point of view]. Soziale Angemessenheit – Forschung zu Kulturtechniken des Verhaltens. [Social appropriateness – research on cultural behavioral techniques]. Springer
Chen, C., Hensel, L. B., Duan, Y., Ince, R. A. A., Garrod, O. G. B., & Beskow, J. (2019). Equipping social robots with culturally-sensitive facial expressions of emotion using data-driven methods. 14th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2019), 1–8.
Chiang, Y., Chu, T., Lim, C. D., Wu, T., Tseng, S., & Fu, L. (2014). Personalizing robot behavior for interruption in social human-robot interaction. IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts, 44–49.
Clegg, J. W. (2012). The importance of feeling awkward: A dialogical narrative phenomenology of socially awkward situations. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
9
(
3
). 262–278.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2012). “How I learned to love the robot”: capabilities, information technologies, and elderly care. The capability approach, technology and design. Springer. 77–86.
Costello, B. J. (2017). Social control theory. Preventing crime and violence. Springer. 31–41.
Creanza, N., Kolodny, O., & Feldman, M. W. (2017). Cultural evolutionary theory. How culture evolves and why it matters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
114
(30), 7782–7789.
Curtin, M. (1985). A question of manners. Status and gender in etiquette and courtesy. The Journal of Modern History,
57
(
3
). 396–423.
Dautenhahn, Kerstin. 2007. Socially intelligent robots: Dimensions of human-robot interaction. In Social intelligence: From brain to culture, eds. Nathan Emery, Nicola Clayton, Chris Frith, Nathan (Ed) Emery, Nicola (Ed) Clayton and Chris (Ed) Frith, 313–351. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
De Graaf, M., Allouch, S. B., & Van Diik, J. (2017). Why do they refuse to use my robot?: Reasons for non-use derived from a long-term home study. 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 224–233.
De Waal, F. (2009). The origins of fairness. New Scientist,
204
1. 34–35.
Dirks, M. A., Treat, T. A., & Weersing, V. R. (2007). Integrating theoretical, measurement, and intervention models of youth social competence. Clinical Psychology Review,
27
(
3
). 327–347.
Dreyer, W., & Hößler, U. (2011). Perspektiven interkultureller Kompetenz. Mit 11 Tabellen. [Perspectives of intercultural competence. With 11 tables]. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Fangl, Y., Lu, T., Zhang, P., Gu, H., & Gu, N. (2018). Exploring the effect of politeness on user contribution in Q&A sites: A case study of stack overflow. 22nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), 713–718.
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in cognitive sciences,
8
(
4
). 185–190.
Fein, M. L. (2012). Human hierarchies: A general theory. Transaction Publishers.
Fiske, S. T., Dupree, C. H., Nicolas, G., & Swencionis, J. K. (2016). Status, power, and intergroup relations. The personal is the societal. Current Opinion in Psychology,
11
1, 44–48.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics
14
(
2
), 219–236.
Frese, M. (2015). Cultural practices, norms, and values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
46
(
10
). 1327–1330.
Gelfand, M. J., Harrington, J. R., & Jackson, J. C. (2017). The strength of social norms across human groups. Perspectives on psychological science: A journal of the Association for Psychological Science
12
(
5
), 800–809.
Golman, R. (2016). Good manners. Signaling social preferences. Theory and Decision,
81
(
1
), 73–88.
Gransche, B. (2019). A Ulysses Pact with Artificial Systems. How to Deliberately Change the Objective Spirit with Cultured AI. Computer Ethics-Philosophical Enquiry (CEPE) Proceedings, 2019 (
1
), 16–38.
Gudykunst, William. 1983. Uncertainty reduction and predictability of behaviour in low- and high-context structures. An exploratory study. Communication Quarterly 31 (1): 49–55.
Habermas, J., & Luhmann, N. (1990). Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie – Was leistet die Systemforschung?. [Theory of societoy or social technology – what does systems research achieve?]. Suhrkamp.
Hedaoo, S., Williams, A., Wadgaonkar, C., & Knight, H. (2019). A robot barista comments on its clients: social attitudes toward robot data use. 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 66–74.
Hoffmann, L. (2017). That robot touch that means so much: On the psychological effects of human-robot touch. Doctoral dissertation, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany.
Hofstede, Gert Jan. 2015. Culture’s causes: The next challenge. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 22 (4): 545–569.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 51). Beverly Hills: Sage.s
Honig, S., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2018). Understanding and resolving failures in human-robot interaction: Literature review and model development. Frontiers in psychology,
9
1, 861–882.
Honneth, A. (2004). Das Ich im Wir: Anerkennung als Triebkraft von Gruppen. Ringen um Anerkennung in und zwischen Gruppen. [The I on the We: Appreciation as driving force of groups. Struggle for appreciation in and between groups.] Jahrbuch für Gruppenanalyse und ihre Anwendungen [Yearbook of group analysis and its applications], 91. 5–21.
Hunter, E. B. (1939). Personality development: A practical self-teaching course comprising health, posture, dress, grooming, voice and speech, conversation, social and business etiquette, self-confidence, poise, living and working with others, acquiring background, improvement of mind and character, achieving success and happiness. Your way of life,
5
1. Better-Speech Institute of America.
Hupfeld-Heinemann, J., & Helversen, B. (2009). Models of decision making on guilt and sanctions. Social Psychology of Punishment of Crime, 275–293.
Ionescu, A. M., & Hierold, C. (2011). Guardian angels for a smarter life: enabling a zero-power technological platform for autonomous smart systems. Procedia Computer Science,
7
1. 43–46.
Ishi, C. T., Mikata, R., & Ishiguro, H. (2020). Person-directed pointing gestures and inter-personal relationship: Expression of politeness to friendliness by android robots. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters,
5
(
4
). 6081–6088.
Kant, I. (2006). Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. Cambridge University Press.
Knoop, E., Bacher, M., Wall, V., Deimel, R., Brock, O., & Beardsley, P. (2017). Handshakiness: Benchmarking for human-robot hand interactions. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 24–28.
Konok, V., Korcsok, B., Miklósi, Á., & Gácsi, M. (2018). Should we love robots? – The most liked qualities of companion dogs and how they can be implemented in social robots. Computers in Human Behavior,
80
1. 132–142.
Kroneberg, C. (2011). Die Erklärung sozialen Handelns: Grundlagen und Anwendung einer integrativen Theorie. [The explanation of social behavior: Basis and application of an integrative theory]. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/Springer Fachmedien.
Kühne, A. (1991). Normen, Werte und Regeln als Determinanten menschlichen Handelns. [Norms, values and rules as determinants of human behavior]. Individuelle und soziale Regeln des Handelns. Beiträge zur Weiterentwicklung geisteswissenschaftlicher Ansätze in der Psychologie. [Individual and social rules of behavior. Contributions to the development of humanistic approaches in psychology]. Asanger.
Langeveld, J. H., Gundersen, K. K., & Svartdal, F. (2012). Social competence as a mediating factor in reduction of behavioral problems. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
56
(
4
). 381–399.
Lichtenstein, S., Gregory, R., & Irwin, J. (2007). What’s bad is easy: Taboo values, affect, and cognition. Judgment and Decision Making,
2
(
3
). 169–188.
Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme. [Social systems]. Suhrkamp.
(1996). Takt und Zensur im Erziehungssystem. [Tact and censorship in the educational system]. Zwischen System und Umwelt. Fragen an die Pädagogik. [Between system and environment. Questions to pedagogy]. Suhrkamp. 279–294.
March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. Free Press.
McQuillin, E., Churamani, N., & Gunes, H. (2022). Learning socially appropriate robo-waiter behaviours through real-time user feedback. 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 541–550).
Meyer, H., Varpio, L., Gruppen, L., & Sandhu, G. (2016). The ethics and etiquette of research collaboration. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges,
91
(
12
). e13.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Moshkina, L., & Arkin, R. C. (2005). Human perspective on affective robotic behavior: a longitudinal study. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1444–1451.
Mussakhojayeva, S., Zhanbyrtayev, M., Agzhanov, Y., & Sandygulova, A. (2016). Who should robots adapt to within a multi-party interaction in a public space?. 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 483–484.
Nähr-Wagener, S. (2020). Anerkennungs- und Verdinglichungsprozesse im Kontext eines vergruppten, personalisierten Webs und soziosensitiver Mensch-Technik-Interaktionen. [Processes of appreciation and reification in the context of a grouped personalized web and sociosensitive human-technology interactions]. Industrie 4.0, Kultur 2.0 und die Neuen Medien – Realitäten, Tendenzen, Mythen. [Industry 4.0, culture 2.0 and new media – realities, tendencies and myths]. 77–90.
Nishida, H. (2005). Cultural schema theory. Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. Sage. 401–419.
Ohshima, N., Kimijima, K., Yamato, J., & Mukawa, N. (2015). A conversational robot with vocal and bodily fillers for recovering from awkward silence at turn-takings. 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 325–330.
Oliveira, J., Martins, G. S., Jegundo, A., Dantas, C., Wings, C., & Santos, L. (2017). Speaking robots: The challenges of acceptance by the ageing society. 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 1285–1290.
Patrick Primeaux, S. M. Le & Veness, F. P. (2009). What is fair. Three perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics,
84
1. 89–102.
Peters, R., Broekens, J., & Neerincx, M. A. (2017). Robots educate in style: The effect of context and non-verbal behaviour on children’s perceptions of warmth and competence. Human-robot collaboration and human assistance for an improved quality of life, 449–455.
Piddocke, S. (1968). Social sanctions. Anthropologica,
10
(
2
). 261–285.
Quaquebeke, N. van, & Eckloff, T. (2010). Defining respectful leadership: What it is, how it can be measured, and another glimpse at what it is related to. Journal of Business Ethics,
91
(
3
). 343–358.
Rakoczy, H., & Schmidt, M. F. (2013). The early ontogeny of social norms. Child Development Perspectives,
7
(
1
). 17–21.
Raven, B. H. (2008). The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,
8
(
1
). 1–22.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language,
53
(
2
). 361–382.
Schank, R. C. (1975). Conceptual information processing. Elsevier.
(1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. Cambridge University Press.
Scheutz, M., & Arnold, T. (2016). Are we ready for sex robots?. 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 351–358.
Schmitt, M. J., & Steyer, R. (1993). A latent state-trait model (not only) for social desirability. Personality and Individual Differences,
14
(
4
). 519–529.
Schmitz, M. (2013). Social rules and the social background. The Background of Social Reality. Springer.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied psychology,
48
(
1
). 23–47.
Seidel, R. (2011). Interkulturelle Kompetenz. [Intercultural competence]. Praxis der interkulturellen Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie. Migration und psychische Gesundheit. [Practice of intercultural psychiatry and psychotherapy. Migration and mental health]. Elsevier, Urban & Fischer.
Stanton, C. J., & Stevens, C. J. (2017). Don’t stare at me: The impact of a humanoid robot’s gaze upon trust during a cooperative human–robot visual task. International Journal of Social Robotics,
9
(
5
). 745–753.
Stemmler, G., Bartussek, D., Hagemann, D., Spinath, F., Amelang, M., Hasselhorn, M., Schneider, S., & Kunde, W. (2016). Differentielle Psychologie und Persönlichkeitsforschung. [Differential psychology and personality research]. Kohlhammer Verlag.
Thimm, C., & Kruse, L. (1991). Dominanz, Macht und Status als Elemente sprachlicher Interaktion. Ein Literaturbericht. [Dominance, power and status as elements of verbal interaction. A literature review]. Arbeiten aus dem Sonderforschungsbereich,
245
1.
Tjomsland, J., Kalkan, S., & Gunes, H. (2022). Mind your manners! a dataset and a continual learning approach for assessing social appropriateness of robot actions. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9 (669420).
Tolmach Lakoff, R., & Bucholtz, M. (2004). Language and woman’s place. Text and commentaries. Oxford University Press.
Trommsdorff, G. (2015). Cultural roots of values, morals, and religious orientations in adolescent development. The Oxford handbook of human development and culture. An interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press. 377–395.
Visser, Thomas, Martijn Vastenburg, and David V. Keyson. 2011. Designing to Support Social Connectedness: The Case of SnowGlobe 51:129–142.
Watzlawick, P. (2016). Man kann nicht nicht kommunizieren: Das Lesebuch. [One cannot not communicate: The reading book]. (2nd edn). Hogrefe AG.
Whitworth, B. (2005). Polite computing. Behaviour & Information Technology,
24
(
5
). 353–363.
Wiegel, V., & van den Berg, J. (2009). Combining moral theory, modal logic and mas to create well-behaving artificial agents. International Journal of Social Robotics,
1
(
3
). 233–242.
Wiese, E., Metta, G., & Wykowska, A. (2017). Robots as intentional agents: Using neuroscientific methods to make robots appear more social. Frontiers in Psychology,
8
1. 1663.
Wullenkord, R., Fraune, M. R., Eyssel, F., & Šabanović, S. (2016). Getting in touch: How imagined, actual, and physical contact affect evaluations of robots. 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 980–985.
Ziem, A. (2008). Frames und sprachliches Wissen: Kognitive Aspekte der semantischen Kompetenz. Walter de Gruyter.
Zwijsen, S. A., Niemeijer, A. R., & Hertogh, C. M. (2011). Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people: an overview of the literature. Aging & mental health,
15
(4), 419–427.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Ramnauth, Rebecca, Dražen Brščić & Brian Scassellati
2024. 2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN), ► pp. 2051 ff. 
Roesler, Oliver, Elahe Bagheri, Amir Aly, Silvia Rossi & Rachid Alami
2022. Socially acceptable robot behavior. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 23:3 ► pp. 355 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.