Jonathan Mumm
Bilge Mutlu
ABSTRACT
To 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 theories suggest competing models of human proxemic behavior, but all conclude that individuals' proxemic behavior is shaped by the proxemic behavior of others and the individual's psychological closeness to them. The present study explores whether these models can also explain how people physically and psychologically distance themselves from robots and suggest guidelines for future design of proxemic behaviors for robots. In a controlled laboratory experiment, participants interacted with Wakamaru to perform two tasks that examined physical and psychological distancing of the participants. We manipulated the likeability (likeable/dislikeable) and gaze behavior (mutual gaze/averted gaze) of the robot. Our results on physical distancing showed that participants who disliked the robot compensated for the increase in the robot's gaze by maintaining a greater physical distance from the robot, while participants who liked the robot did not differ in their distancing from the robot across gaze conditions. The results on psychological distancing suggest that those who disliked the robot also disclosed less to the robot. Our results offer guidelines for the design of appropriate proxemic behaviors for robots so as to facilitate effective human-robot interaction.
- Adler, L. L. and Iverson, M. A. 1974. Interpersonal distance as a function of task difficulty, praise, status orientation, and sex of partner. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 2, 683--692.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Aiello, J. R. 1977. A further look at equilibrium theory: Visual interaction as a function of interpersonal distance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1, 2, 122--140Google ScholarCross Ref
- Argyle, M. and Dean, J. 1965. Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 3, 289--304.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ashton, N. L. and Shaw, M. E. 1980. Affective reactions to interpersonal distances by friends and strangers. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 5, 306--308.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., and Loomis, J. M. 2001. Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence, 10, 6, 583--596. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Baxter, J. C. 1970. Interpersonal spacing in natural settings. Sociometry, 33, 4, 444--456.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bogardus, E. S. 1925. Social distance and its origins. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 216--226.Google Scholar
- Byrne, D. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Firestone, I. 1977. Reconciling verbal and nonverbal models of dyadic communication. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 2, 1, 30--42.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gouldner, A. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 2, 161--178.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hall, E. T. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday, Garden City, NY.Google Scholar
- Hayduk, W. 1983. Personal space: Where we now stand. Psychological bulletin, 94, 2, 293--335.Google Scholar
- Hayduk, W. 1981. The shape of personal space: An experimental investigation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 13, 1, 87--93.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jourard, S. M. and Friedman, R. 1970. Experimenter-subject "distance" and self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 3, 278--282.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kaplan, K. J., Firestone, I. J., Klein, K. W., and Sodikoff, C. 1983. Distancing in dyads: A comparison of four models. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 2, 108--115.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kaplan, K. 1977. Structure and process in interpersonal "distancing". Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1, 2, 104--121.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Moreno, J. L. 1947. Group psychotherapy: A symposium. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 105, 3, 331--332.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Moreno, J. L. 1934. Who Shall Survive? A New Approach to the Problem of Human Interrelations. Beacon House, New York.Google Scholar
- Mutlu, B., Yamaoka, F., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., and Hagita, N. 2009. Nonverbal leakage in robots: Communication of intentions through seemingly unintentional behavior. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (San Diego, CA, March 11 - 13, 2009). HRI '09. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 69--76. DOI= 10.1145/1514095.1514110 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mutlu, B. and Forlizzi, J. 2008. Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 12 - 11, 2008). HRI '08. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 287--294. DOI= 10.1145/1349822.1349860 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patterson, M. 1976. An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review, 83, 3, 235--245.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Takayama, L. and Pantofaru, C. 2009. Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (St. Louis, MO, October 10 - 15, 2009). IROS '09. IEEE, 5495--5502. DOI= 10.1109/IROS.2009.5354145 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Valentine, M. E. and Erlichman, H. 1979. Interpersonal gaze and helping behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 107, 2, 193--198.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Walters, M. L., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boekhorst, R., Koay, K. L., Kaouri, C., Woods, S., Nehaniv, C., Lee, D., and Werry, I. 2005. The influence of subjects' personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Workshop on Robots and Human Interactive Communication (Nashville, TN, August 13 - 15, 2005). ROMAN '05. IEEE, 347--352. DOI= 10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513803Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction
Recommendations
Autonomous human---robot proxemics: socially aware navigation based on interaction potential
To enable situated human---robot interaction (HRI), an autonomous robot must both understand and control proxemics--the social use of space--to employ natural communication mechanisms analogous to those used by humans. This work presents a computational ...
The impact of intergroup bias on trust and approach behaviour towards a humanoid robot
As robots become commonplace, and for successful human-robot interaction to occur, people will need to trust them. Two experiments were conducted using the "minimal group paradigm" to explore whether social identity theory influences trust formation and ...
Comparing human-robot proxemics between virtual reality and the real world
HRI '19: Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionVirtual Reality (VR) can greatly benefit Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) as a tool to effectively iterate across robot designs. However, possible system limitations of VR could influence the results such that they do not fully reflect real-life encounters ...
Comments