From once being utopian, robots become more and more common in public and private social life. One area of application are robots, which are able to perform chores in domestic environments. To support users accustoming to the new robot companion, psychological mechanisms that enhance the interaction with robots need to be understood. In this research, the effects of robot’s height and manipulator position on proximity, affect and trust with regards to a humanoid robot were investigated in a laboratory experiment. Results indicated an effect of robot’s height on the comfort distance. On the other hand, a habituation effect after a second robot-human approach was found, in which the influence of the robot’s height on proximity diminished. Similar effects with an anxiety decrease and trending trust increase in the tall robot over time emphasize the importance of first encounters, which should be paid special attention to by designers of robotic systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrandlC.MertensA.SchlickC. M. (2016). Human-robot interaction in assisted personal services: factors influencing distances that humans will accept between themselves and an approaching service robot. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 26(6), 713-727. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20675
2.
HallE. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Anchor Books.
3.
HallE. T. (1974). Handbook for proxemic research. Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication.
4.
HamJ.van EschM.LimpensY.de PeeJ.CabibihanJ. J.GeS. S. (2012). The automaticity of social behavior towards robots: The influence of cognitive load on interpersonal distance to approachable versus less approachable robots. In GeS. S.KhatibO.CabibihanJ. J.SimmonsR.WilliamsM. A. (Eds.), International conference on social robotics (pp. 15-25). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_2
5.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y.De VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517-527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254
6.
HartnettJ. J.BaileyK. G.HartleyC. S. (1974). Body height, position, and sex as determinants of personal space. The Journal of Psychology, 87(1), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1974.9915683
KoayK. L.SyrdalD. S.WaltersM. L.DautenhahnK. (2007). Living with robots: Investigating the habituation effect in participants’ preferences during a longitudinal human-robot interaction study. RO-MAN 2007-The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 16, 564-569. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415149
9.
KrausJ. M. (2020). Psychological processes in the formation and calibration of trust in automation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ulm University.
10.
KrausJ.ScholzD.MessnerE.-M.MessnerM.BaumannM. (2020). Scared to trust? – Predicting trust in highly automated driving by depressiveness, negative self-evaluations and state anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02917
11.
LangP. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: computer applications. In SidowskiJ. B.JohnsonJ. H.WilliamsT. A. (Eds.), Technology in Mental Health Care Delivery Systems (pp. 119-l37). Ablex.
12.
LeeJ. D. (2006). Affect, attention, and automation. In KramerA. F.WiegmannD.KirlikA. (Eds.), Attention: From theory to practice (pp. 73-89). Oxford University Press.
13.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80.
14.
LeichtmannB.NitschV. (2020). How much distance do humans keep toward robots? Literature review, meta-analysis, and theoretical considerations on personal space in human-robot interaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101386
15.
MeadR.MatarićM. J. (2016). Perceptual models of human-robot proxemics. In HsiehM.KhatibO.KumarV. (Eds.), Experimental Robotics (pp. 261-276). Springer.
16.
MillerL.KrausJ.BabelF.BaumannM. (2020). Too close to trust – Mediation of state anxiety between user dispositions, trust and distancing behavior in domestic human-robot interaction [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Human Factors, Ulm University.
17.
MummJ.MutluB. (2011). Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. In BillardA.KahnP.. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction (pp. 331-338). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957786
18.
NomuraT.KandaT.SuzukiT.KatoK. (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), 442-451. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.914004
19.
ObaidM.SandovalE. B.ZłotowskiJ.MoltchanovaE.BasedowC. A.BartneckC. (2016). Stop! That is close enough. How body postures influence human-robot proximity. 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 25, pp. 354-361. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2016.7745155
20.
PerryA.RubinstenO.PeledL.Shamay-TsooryS. G. (2013). Don’t stand so close to me: A behavioral and ERP study of preferred interpersonal distance. Neuroimage, 83, 761-769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.042
21.
Rios-MartinezJ.SpalanzaniA.LaugierC. (2015). From proxemics theory to socially-aware navigation: A survey. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(2), 137-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0251-1
22.
SchwarzN.CloreG. L. (1988). How do I feel about It? Informative functions of affective states. In FiedlerK.ForgasJ. (Eds.), Affect, cognition and social behaviour (pp. 44-62). Hogrefe.
23.
SisbotE. A.Marin-UriasL. F.AlamiR.SimeonT. (2007). A human aware mobile robot motion planner. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 23(5), 874-883. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.904911
24.
SpielbergerC. D. (1966). Anxiety and behavior. Academic Press.
25.
StulpG.BuunkA. P.VerhulstS.PolletT. V. (2015). Human height is positively related to interpersonal dominance in dyadic interactions. PloS One, 10(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117860
26.
TortaE.CuijpersR. H.JuolaJ. (2013). Design of a parametric model of personal space for robotic social navigation. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(3), 357-365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0188-9
27.
TsuiK. M.DesaiM.YancoH. A. (2010). Considering the bystander’s perspective for indirect human-robot interaction. 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 5, 129-130. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2010.5453230
28.
van OosterhoutT.VisserA. (2008). A visual method for robot proxemics measurements. In BurghartC. R.SteinfeldA. (Eds.), Proceedings of Metrics for Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 61-68). University of Hertfordshire.
29.
WaltersM. L.DautenhahnK.Te BoekhorstR.KoayK. L.KaouriC.WoodsS.NehanivC.LeeD.WerryI. (2005). The influence of subjects’ personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment. ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 347-352. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513803
