Michiel P. Joosse
Vanessa Evers
ABSTRACT
In our daily life everything and everyone occupies an amount of space, simply by "being there". Edward Hall coined the term proxemics for the studies of man's use of this space. This paper presents a study on proxemics in Human-Robot Interaction and particularly on robot's approaching groups of people. As social psychology research found proxemics to be culturally dependent, we focus on the question of the appropriateness of the robot's approach behavior in different cultures. We present an online survey (N=181) that was distributed in three countries; China, the U.S. and Argentina. Our results show that participants prefer a robot that stays out of people's intimate space zone just like a human would be expected to do. With respect to cultural differences, Chinese participants showed high-contact responses and believed closer approaches were appropriate compared to their U.S. counterparts. Argentinian participants more closely resembled the ratings of the U.S. participants.
- Brewer, M.B. and Chen, Y.-R. 2007. Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological review. 114, 1 (Jan. 2007), 133--51.Google Scholar
- Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M. and Lucas, R.E. 2006. The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological assessment. 18, 2 (Jun. 2006), 192--203.Google Scholar
- Gupta, V., Hanges, P. and Dorfman, P. 2002. Cultural clusters: Methodology and findings. Journal of World Business. 37, (2002), 11--15.Google Scholar
- Hall, E.T. 1963. A system for the notation of proxemics behavior. American anthropologist. 65, 5 (1963), 1003--1026.Google Scholar
- Hall, E.T. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books.Google Scholar
- Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- Høgh-Olesen, H. 2008. Human Spatial Behaviour: The Spacing of People, Objects and Animals in Six Cross- Cultural Samples. Journal of Cognition and Culture. 8, 3 (Aug. 2008), 245--280.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hüttenrauch, H. and Eklundh, K. 2006. Investigating spatial relationships in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. (2006), 5052--5059.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kendon, A. 1973. The role of visible behaviour in the organization of face-to-face interaction. In M. von Cranach and I. Vine, eds., Social Communication and Movement Studies of Interaction and Expression in Manad Chimpanzee. New York: Academic Press, p. 29--74.Google Scholar
- Kendon, A. 1990. Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Kuzuoka, H., Suzuki, Y., Yamashita, J. and Yamazaki, K. 2010. Reconfiguration Spatial Formation Arrangement by Robot Body Orientation. Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, 285--292 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Little, K.B. 1968. Cultural variations in social schemata. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 10, 1 (Sep. 1968), 1--7.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T. and Kato, K. 2008. Prediction of Human Behavior in Human--Robot Interaction Using Psychological Scales for Anxiety and Negative Attitudes Toward Robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 24, 2 (Apr. 2008), 442--451 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patterson, M.L., Mullens, S., and Romano, J. 1971. Compensatory Reactions to Spatial Intrusion. Sociometry. 34, 1 (1971), 114--121Google ScholarCross Ref
- Reeves, B. and Nass, C. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rehm, M., André, E. and Nischt, M. 2005. Let's Come Together -- Social Navigation Behaviors of Virtual and Real Humans. INTETAIN 2005 (2005), 124--133. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Remland, M.S., Jones, T.S. and Brinkman, H. 1995. Interpersonal distance, body orientation, and touch: Effects of culture, gender, and age. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 135, 3 (1995), 281--297.Google Scholar
- Sardar, A.H., Joosse, M.P., Weiss, A. and Evers, V. 2012. Don't stand so close to me: users' attitudinal and behavioral responses to personal space invasion by robots. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 229--230. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sussman, N.M. and Rosenfeld, H.M. 1982. Influence of culture, language, and sex on conversational distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42, 1 (1982), 66--74.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S.N., Walters, M.L. & Koay, K.L. 2006. 'Doing the right thing wrong'- Personality and tolerance to uncomfortable robot approaches. Proc. of the 15th IEEE Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 183--188Google ScholarCross Ref
- Takayama, L. and Pantofaru, C. 2009. Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Robots and Systems (IROS2009) (2009), 5495--5502. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Walters, M.L. 2008. The design space for robot appearance and behaviour for social robot companions. University of Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
- Walters, M.L. and Dautenhahn, K. 2005. Close encounters: Spatial distances between people and a robot of mechanistic appearance. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE-RAS Conference on Humanoid Robots (2005), 450--455.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Walters, M.L., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S.N. and Koay, K.L. 2007. Robotic Etiquette: Results from User Studies Involving a Fetch and Carry Task. Proceedings of the 2007 ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 317--324. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yamaoka, F., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H. and Hagita, N. 2008. How close?: model of control for informationpresenting robots. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, 137--144. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Cultural differences in how an engagement-seeking robot should approach a group of people
Recommendations
Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction
HRI '11: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interactionTo seamlessly integrate into the human physical and social environment, robots must display appropriate proxemic behavior - that is, follow societal norms in establishing their physical and psychological distancing with people. Social-scientific ...
Exploring Cross-cultural Differences in Persuasive Robotics
HRI '18: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionOne of the fundamental aspects of social interaction is persuasion. It is a useful feature for a social robot to incorporate in its social behavior. Persuasiveness in human-robot interaction can be influenced by a number of factors including robot»s ...
Differences between Young and Old Users when Interacting with a Humanoid Robot: A Qualitative Usability Study
HRI '18: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionThere is a growing body of knowledge on how people interact with robots, but limited information on the difference between young and old adults in their preferences when interacting with humanoid robots. Our goals in the current study were: (1) to ...
Comments