Influences on Proxemic Behaviors in Human-Robot Interaction
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems October 11-15, 2009 St. Louis, USA Influences on Proxemic Behaviors in Human-Robot Interaction Leila Takayama and Caroline Pantofaru Abstract— As robots enter the everyday physical world of human proxemic behaviors around robots, and how human people, it is important that they abide by society’s unspoken factors such as experience with robots can affect them. social rules such as respecting people’s personal spaces. In By gaining a deeper understanding of the factors that this paper, we explore issues related to human personal space around robots, beginning with a review of the existing literature most influence human-robot proxemic zones, one may gain in human-robot interaction regarding the dimensions of people, a better sense of how to design better models of human- robots, and contexts that influence human-robot interactions. robot interaction, optimizing algorithms for how close robots We then present several research hypotheses which we tested should approach people. Indeed, using proxemic distances to in a controlled experiment (N=30). Using a 2 (robotics experi- alter interactive system behavior has already been effective ence vs. none: between-participants) x 2 (robot head oriented toward a participant’s face vs. legs: within-participants) mixed in human-computer interactions with systems such as digital design experiment, we explored the factors that influence white boards [12]. Similar research is currently being done proxemic behavior around robots in several situations: (1) on how end-users might teach robots to engage in acceptable people approaching a robot, (2) people being approached by an proxemic behaviors [13]. autonomously moving robot, and (3) people being approached The goals of this study are to more thoroughly explore by a teleoperated robot. We found that personal experience with pets and robots decreases a person’s personal space the human and robot factors that influence optimal proxemic around robots. In addition, when the robot’s head is oriented behaviors in human-robot interaction and to turn those find- toward the person’s face, it increases the minimum comfortable ings into implications for human-robot interaction design. As distance for women, but decreases the minimum comfortable such, we first present a review of existing literature on issues distance for men. We also found that the personality trait of of human proxemics, human dimensions of HRI proxemics, agreeableness decreases personal spaces when people approach robots, while the personality trait of neuroticism and having robot dimensions of HRI proxemics, and pose hypotheses to negative attitudes toward robots increase personal spaces when be tested by this study. robots approach people. These results have implications for Our theoretical stance is that people will engage in prox- both human-robot interaction theory and design. emic behavior with robots in much the same way that they interact with other people, thereby extending the Computers I. INTRODUCTION as Social Actors theory [14][16] to human-robot interaction. Based on the existing empirical literature in human prox- Simple robots such as robotic vacuum cleaners are becom- emics and HRI, we present more specific research hypothe- ing increasingly prevalent in everyday human environments, ses and test them with a controlled experiment, focusing and it is only a matter of time until larger and more complex on personal experience with pets and robots, personality robots join them. As in human-to-human interactions, a characteristics, and the robot’s head direction (facing the contributing factor to human acceptance of such machines person’s face vs. facing the person’s legs), as they influence may be how well the robots obey comfortable human-robot the personal spaces between people and robots. spatial relationships. There is a wealth of information from both natural field observations and controlled laboratory II. RELATED LITERATURE experiments regarding the personal spaces of interacting A. Human Proxemics people (e.g., [2][8]), but it is unclear exactly how this will Fifty years ago, Edward T. Hall [8] introduced the concept inform human-robot personal spaces. of proxemics, which refers to the personal space that people The media equation theory states that people interact maintain around themselves. Much of the research on this with computers as they interact with people [14][16]. This topic is summarized by Michael Argyle [2], who introduced may become increasingly true for human-robot interaction, an intimacy equilibrium model [1], which reasons about the where the computers that take action in the physical human interactions between mutual gaze and proxemic behavior. If environment. However, people do not always orient toward a person feels that someone else is standing too close for robots as they orient toward people. At times, people engage comfort, that person will share less mutual gaze and/or lean with robots in the way that they engage with tools [20], away from the other person. As noted by Argyle [2], there are particularly when they are roboticists whose job it is to build many factors that influence proxemic behaviors, including and maintain the robot. Thus, it is necessary to gain a better individual personalities, familiarity between people, to what understanding of which robot design decisions influence degree people are interacting, the social norms of their culture, etc. L. Takayama and C. Pantofaru are Research Scientists at Wil- low Garage Inc., 68 Willow Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA The unspoken rules of personal space tend to hold true takayama,[email protected] with nonhuman agents. In virtual reality settings, people 978-1-4244-3804-4/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE 5495 adjust their proxemic behaviors to virtual people (e.g., avatars In controlled experiments that manipulated robot voices, and virtual agents) as they do with regular people in the adults tended to have longer approach distances from robots physical world [3]. This is consistent with the media equa- with synthesized voices as opposed to approach distances tion theory [14][16]. Given that people will interact with from robots with high quality male as opposed to high quality computers, on-screen characters, and virtual reality agents, female voices or no voices at all [24]. it is not unreasonable to posit that such proxemic behaviors In similar experiments that manipulated robot form might also hold true in human-robot interaction. We explore (mechanoid vs. humanoid PeopleBots), adults tended to have the related works in human-robot personal spaces in the longer approach distances from humanoid robots than from following sections. mechanoid ones [19]. Similar results were found on the B. Human Dimensions of HRI Proxemics Nomadic Scout II [5]. People have been shown to also be sensitive to mobile Among the many human factors that influence proxemics robot speeds, preferring that a robot move at speeds slower in HRI are a person’s age, personality, familiarity with than that of a walking human [5]; studies have found that robots, and gender. having a mobile personal robot moving at approximately 1 A person’s age influences how close a person will stand to meter per second is too fast for human comfort. a robot. In controlled experiments with children and adults interacting with the mechanistic robot PeopleBot, children Robot height is yet another contributing factor. The study tended to stand further away from the robot than adults [22]. in [23] argued that actual robot height does not systematically Peoples’ personalities also seem to influence the distances influence comfortable approach distances across the partici- they maintain to robots. In a laboratory experiment with pants, although robot appearance does. Height was a factor robots approaching seated people, it was found that people in overall perceptions, however, with the taller PeopleBot who are highly extroverted are tolerant of personal space perceived as being more capable, authoritative and human- invasion, regardless of whether the robot approaches from the like than the shorter version. front or rear; however, people who are low on extraversion D. Contextual Dimensions of HRI Proxemics are more sensitive to robot approach directions [17]. This is consistent with previous research in human interpersonal Depending upon the type of human-robot interaction activ- distance that found extroverts are tolerant of closer proxemic ity, proxemic behaviors may vary widely. In a more dynamic behaviors than introverts [25]. In somewhat of a contrast, interaction of people teaching robots to identify objects, another study of standing people found that those who adults were generally found to prefer to maintain a personal are more proactive (i.e., more aggressive, creative, active, distance (i.e., 0.46 to 1.22 meters) from the robot, but this excitement-seeking, dominant, impulsive, and less shy) tend varied by the type of task (i.e., following, showing, and to stand further away from robots [21]. Though the two validating missions) [10]. studies do not tap the exact same personality construct, they pose an interesting conflict in the existing literature regarding E. Research Hypotheses personality and human-robot spatial relationships. Based on the existing literature in human-robot interaction Consistent with the social science findings that people and proxemics, we pose four research hypotheses to be stand closer to other people with whom they are more explored in