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
Published online: 21 April 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22029.roe
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22029.roe
Abstract
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.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Survey
- Demographics
- Statistical analysis
- Gender
- Age
- Primary field of research
- Occupation
- Country of origin
- Country of residence
- Statistical analysis
- 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
References (16)
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.
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Kruse, T., Pandey, A., Alami, R., & Kirsch, A. (2013, December). Human-Aware Robot Navigation: A Survey. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61(12), 1726–1743.
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.
Mensah, Y. M., & Chen, H.-Y. (2013, April). Global Clustering of Countries by Culture – An Extension of the GLOBE Study. SSRN.
Nakagawa, S. (2004). A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behavioral ecology, 15(6), 1044–1045.
Sarathy, V., Wilson, J. R., Arnold, T., & Scheutz, M. (2016). Enabling basic normative HRI in a cognitive robotic architecture. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03814.
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).
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.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Ossadnik, Jonas & Katrin Muehlfeld
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 17 march 2026. 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.