Volume 23, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
Preview this article:

This work was made publicly available by the publisher.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Bassetti, C., Blanzieri, E., Borgo, S., & Marangon, S.
    (2022) Towards socially-competent and culturally-adaptive artificial agents Expressive order, interactional disruptions and recovery strategies. Interaction Studies. 10.1075/is.22021.bas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22021.bas [Google Scholar]
  2. Brave, S., Nass, C., & Hutchinson, K.
    (2005, February). Computers that care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62(2), 161–178. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  3. Costantini, S., Formisano, A., & Pitoni, V.
    (2022) An Epistemic Logic for Formalizing Group Dynamics of Agents. Interaction Studies. 10.1075/is.22019.cos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22019.cos [Google Scholar]
  4. Cramer, H., Goddijn, J., Wielinga, B., & Evers, V.
    (2010, March). Effects of (In)Accurate Empathy and Situational Valence on Attitudes towards Robots. InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K.
    (2003, December). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 143–166. 10.1016/S0921‑8890(02)00372‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X [Google Scholar]
  6. Groom, V., Chen, J., Johnson, T., Kara, F. A., & Nass, C.
    (2010, March). Critic, compatriot, or chump?: Responses to robot blame attribution. InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 10.1145/1734454.1734545
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1734454.1734545 [Google Scholar]
  7. Hamacher, A., Bianchi-Berthouze, N., Pipe, A. G., & Eder, K.
    (2016, August). Believing in BERT: Using expressive communication to enhance trust and counteract operational error in physical Human-robot interaction. InProceedings of the 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). 10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745163
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745163 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hwang, J., Park, T., & Hwang, W.
    (2013, May). The effects of overall robot shape on the emotions invoked in users and the perceived personalities of robot. Applied Ergonomics, 44(3), 459–471. 10.1016/j.apergo.2012.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  9. Joosse, M. P., Poppe, R. W., Lohse, M., & Evers, V.
    (2014, August). Cultural differences in how an engagement-seeking robot should approach a group of people. InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Collaboration across Boundaries: Culture, Distance & Technology (CABS) (p.121–130). 10.1145/2631488.2631499
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2631488.2631499 [Google Scholar]
  10. Lee, H. R., & Sabanovic, S.
    (2014, March). Culturally Variable Preferences for Robot Design and Use in South Korea, Turkey, and the United States. InProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 10.1145/2559636.2559676
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2559636.2559676 [Google Scholar]
  11. Li, H., Milani, S., Krishnamoorthy, V., Lewis, M., & Sycara, K.
    (2019, January). Perceptions of Domestic Robots’ Normative Behavior Across Cultures. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES) (p.345–351). 10.1145/3306618.3314251
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314251 [Google Scholar]
  12. Roesler, O., Bagheri, E., & Aly, A.
    (2022) Toward Understanding the Effects of Socially Aware Robot Behavior. Interaction Studies. 10.1075/is.22029.roe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22029.roe [Google Scholar]
  13. Scheutz, M., Schermerhorn, P., Kramer, J., & Anderson, D.
    (2007, May). First steps toward natural human-like HRI. Autonomous Robots, 221, 411–423. 10.1007/s10514‑006‑9018‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-006-9018-3 [Google Scholar]
  14. Shiarlis, K., Messias, J., & Whiteson, S.
    (September 2017) Acquiring social interaction behaviours for telepresence robots via deep learning from demonstration. InProceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). 10.1109/IROS.2017.8202135
    https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2017.8202135 [Google Scholar]
  15. Shiomi, M., Nakagawa, K., & Hagita, N.
    (2013, December). Design of a gaze behavior at a small mistake moment for a robot. Interaction Studies, 14(3), 317–328. 10.1075/is.14.3.01shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.14.3.01shi [Google Scholar]
  16. Walters, M. L., Dautenhahn, K., te Boekhorst, R., Koay, K. L., & Woods, S. N.
    (2007, April). Exploring the Design Space of Robot Appearance and Behavior in an Attention-Seeking ‘Living Room’ Scenario for a Robot Companion. InProceedings of the 2007 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life (p.341–347). 10.1109/ALIFE.2007.367815
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ALIFE.2007.367815 [Google Scholar]
  17. Wullenkord, R., Bellon, J., Gransche, B., Nähr-Wagener, S., & Eyssel, F.
    (2022) Social appropriateness in HMI – the Five Factors of Social Appropriateness (FASA) Model. Interaction Studies. 10.1075/is.22017.wul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22017.wul [Google Scholar]
  18. Yildirim, Y., & Ugur, E.
    (2022) Learning Social Navigation from Demonstrations with Conditional Neural Processes. Interaction Studies. 10.1075/is.22018.yil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22018.yil [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Editorial
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error