BEHAVE-II: The Revised Set of Measures to Assess Users’ Attitudinal and Behavioral Responses to a Social Robot

In order to inform the design of behaviors for robots that share domestic and public spaces with people, it is important to know what robot behavior is considered as normative. The work reported in this paper stems from the premise that what is perceived as socially normative behavior for people may differ from what is considered socially normative for a robot. This paper details the development of a data collection instrument, BEHAVE-II, for assessing user responses toward a robot’s behavior using both attitudinal and behavioral responses. To test the validity and reliability of the BEHAVE-II instrument, a human-robot interaction experiment was conducted in which a robot or a human invaded the personal space of a participant. We found that participants’ reactions were stronger when their personal space was invaded by a robot compared with a person. This points to the fact that humans are actually highly sensible whether robots’ adhere to social norms which underlines the importance of the BEHAVE-II instrument.

[1]  M. Argyle,et al.  EYE-CONTACT, DISTANCE AND AFFILIATION. , 1965, Sociometry.

[2]  E. Hall,et al.  The Hidden Dimension , 1970 .

[3]  A. Mehrabian.  Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior , 1968 .

[4]  J. Mccroskey.  Measurement of the Credibility of Peers and Spouses. , 1973 .

[5]  M. Argyle,et al.  The Different Functions of Gaze , 1973 .

[6]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  The measurement of interpersonal attraction , 1974 .

[7]  M. Patterson.  An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. , 1976 .

[8]  L. Hayduk.  Personal space: Where we now stand. , 1983 .

[9]  Michael J. Black,et al.  Tracking and recognizing rigid and non-rigid facial motions using local parametric models of image motion , 1995, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision.

[10]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[11]  Laura K. Guerrero,et al.  Responses to nonverbal intimacy change in romantic dyads: Effects of behavioral valence and degree of behavioral change on nonverbal and verbal reactions , 2000 .

[12]  John Travis Butler,et al.  Psychological Effects of Behavior Patterns of a Mobile Personal Robot , 2001, Auton. Robots.

[13]  Yasushi Nakauchi,et al.  A Social Robot that Stands in Line , 2002, Auton. Robots.

[14]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Roles and functions of robots in human society: implications from research in autism therapy , 2003, Robotica.

[15]  V. Manusov.  The sourcebook of nonverbal measures : going beyond words , 2004 .

[16]  K. M. Lee,et al.  Can robots manifest personality? : An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human-robot interaction , 2006 .

[17]  T. Kanda,et al.  Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots , 2006 .

[18]  Lora Aroyo,et al.  The effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a content-based art recommender , 2008, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[19]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Sharing Spaces with Robots in a Home Scenario - Anthropomorphic Attributions and their Effect on Proxemic Expectations and Evaluations in a Live HRI Trial , 2008, AAAI Fall Symposium: AI in Eldercare: New Solutions to Old Problems.

[20]  Leila Takayama,et al.  Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction , 2009, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[21]  Pei-Luen Patrick Rau,et al.  Responsiveness to robots: effects of ingroup orientation & communication style on hri in china , 2009, HRI '09.

[22]  Pei-Luen Patrick Rau,et al.  When in Rome: The role of culture & context in adherence to robot recommendations , 2010, 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[23]  Karl F. MacDorman,et al.  Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: Developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[24]  Ben J. A. Kröse,et al.  Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults: the Almere Model , 2010, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[25]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  Human-robot proxemics: Physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[26]  Vanessa Evers,et al.  BEHAVE: A Set of Measures to Assess Users' Attitudinal and Non-verbal Behavioral Responses to a Robot's Social Behaviors , 2011, ICSR.

[27]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  Interpersonal Attraction Scale , 2012 .

[28]  Holly A. Yanco,et al.  Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction , 2012, HRI 2012.

[29]  Astrid Weiss,et al.  Don't stand so close to me: Users' attitudinal and behavioral responses to personal space invasion by robots , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).