Cover not available
Article published In:
Socially Acceptable Robot Behavior: Approaches for Learning, Adaptation and Evaluation
Edited by Oliver Roesler, Elahe Bagheri, Amir Aly, Silvia Rossi and Rachid Alami
[Interaction Studies 23:3] 2022
► pp. 513–552

Toward understanding the effects of socially aware robot behavior

| IVAI GmbH
| IVAI GmbH
| University of Plymouth

A key factor for the acceptance of robots as regular partners in human-centered environments is the appropriateness and predictability of their behaviors, which depend partially on the robot behavior’s conformity to social norms. Previous experimental studies have shown that robots that follow social norms and the corresponding interactions are perceived more positively by humans than robots or interactions that do not adhere to social norms. However, the conducted studies only focused on the effects of social norm compliance in specific scenarios. Therefore, this paper aims to guide further research studies by compiling how researchers in relevant research fields think the perception of robots and the corresponding interactions are influenced independently of a specific scenario if a robot’s behavior conforms to social norms. Additionally, this study investigates what characteristics and metrics constitute a good general benchmark to objectively evaluate the behavior of social robots regarding its conformity to social norms according to researchers in relevant research communities. Finally, the paper summarizes how the obtained results can guide future research toward socially aware robot behavior.

Keywords: social norms, robot behavior adaptation, socially aware robot behavior, metrics, benchmarks
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Survey
  • Demographics
    • Statistical analysis
      • Gender
      • Age
      • Primary field of research
      • Occupation
      • Country of origin
      • Country of residence
  • Influence of socially normative behavior on the perception of the robot and interaction
  • Benchmarks and metrics to evaluate socially normative robot behavior
  • Interactive session summary
    • Should we develop robot social norms or should robots follow human social norms?
    • Can socially normative robot behavior be hard-coded/programmed or must it be learned through interaction with humans?
  • Panel discussion
  • Discussion
  • Conclusions
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22029.roe
References
Cabin, R. J., & Mitchell, R. J.
(2000) To Bonferroni or not to Bonferroni: when and how are the questions. Bulletin of the ecological society of America, 81(3), 246–248.Google Scholar
Ciou, P.-H., Hsiao, Y.-T., Wu, Z.-Z., Tseng, S.-H., & Fu, L.-C.
(2018) Composite reinforcement learning for social robot navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (p. 2553–2558). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M., Woods, S., Koay, K. L., Nehaniv, C. L., Sisbot, A., … Simeon, T.
(2006) How may I serve you? A robot companion approaching a seated person in a helping context. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction (p. 172–179). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gao, Y., Yang, F., Frisk, M., Hemandez, D., Peters, C., & Castellano, G.
(2019) Learning socially appropriate robot approaching behavior toward groups using deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (p. 1–8). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joosse, M., Lohse, M., & Evers, V.
(2014) Lost in proxemics: spatial behavior for cross-cultural HRI. In Proceedings of the HRI 2014 Workshop on Culture-Aware Robotics (p. 1–6).Google Scholar
Koay, K. L., Syrdal, D. S., Walters, M. L., & Dautenhahn, K.
(2007) Living with robots: Investigating the habituation effect in participants’ preferences during a longitudinal human-robot interaction study. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (p. 564–569).Google Scholar
Kruse, T., Pandey, A., Alami, R., & Kirsch, A.
(2013, December). Human-Aware Robot Navigation: A Survey. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61(12), 1726–1743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, D., Rau, P.-L., & Li, Y.
(2010) A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2 (2), 175–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mensah, Y. M., & Chen, H.-Y.
(2013, April). Global Clustering of Countries by Culture – An Extension of the GLOBE Study. SSRN.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S.
(2004) A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behavioral ecology, 15 (6), 1044–1045. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perneger, T. V.
(1998) What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ, 316 (7139), 1236–1238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarathy, V., Wilson, J. R., Arnold, T., & Scheutz, M.
(2016) Enabling basic normative HRI in a cognitive robotic architecture. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03814.Google Scholar
Takayama, L., & Pantofaru, C.
(2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (p. 5495–5502). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomic, S., Pecora, F., & Saffiotti, A.
(2014, August). Too Cool for School – Adding Social Constraints inHuman Aware Planning. In The 9th International Workshop on Cognitive Robotics (CogRob). Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
Trovato, G., Zecca, M., Sessa, S., Jamone, L., Ham, J., Hashimoto, K., & Takanishi, A.
(2013) Cross-cultural study on human-robot greeting interaction: acceptance and discomfort by Egyptians and Japanese. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 4 (2), 83–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, L., Rau, P.-L. P., Evers, V., Robinson, B. K., & Hinds, P.
(2010) When in Rome: the role of culture & context in adherence to robot recommendations. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (p. 359–366). DOI logoGoogle Scholar