Socially Acceptable Robot Behavior
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Social appropriateness is an important topic – both in the human-human interaction (HHI), and in the human-machine interaction (HMI) context. As sociosensitive and socioactive assistance systems advance, the question arises whether a machine’s behavior should include considerations regarding social appropriateness. However, the concept of social appropriateness is difficult to define, as it is determined by multiple aspects. Thus, to date, a unified perspective, encompassing and combining multidisciplinary findings, is missing. When translating results from HHI to HMI, it remains unclear whether such insights into the dynamics of social appropriateness between humans may in fact apply to sociosensitive and socioactive assistance systems. To shed light on this matter, we propose the Five Factor Model of Social Appropriateness (FASA) which provides a multidisciplinary perspective on the notion of social appropriateness and its implementation into technical systems. Finally, we offer reflections on the applicability and ethics of the FASA Model, highlighting both strengths and limitations of the framework.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abelson, R. P.
    (1981) Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist361, 715–729. 10.1037/0003‑066X.36.7.715
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.7.715 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ajibo, C. A., Ishi, C. T., & Ishiguro, H.
    (2021) Advocating Attitudinal Change Through Android Robot’s Intention-Based Expressive Behaviors: Toward WHO COVID-19 Guidelines Adherence. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6 (4), 6521–6528. 10.1109/LRA.2021.3094783
    https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2021.3094783 [Google Scholar]
  3. Avrunin, E., & Simmons, R.
    (2014) Socially-appropriate approach paths using human data. 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 1037–1042. 10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926389
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926389 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barraquand, R., & Crowley, J. L.
    (2008) Learning polite behavior with situation models. 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 209–216. 10.1145/1349822.1349850
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349850 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bellon, J.
    (2023) Emotions components and understanding in humans and machines. In: Misselhorn, C. (eds): Emotional Machines. Perspectives from Affective Computing and Emotional Human-Machine Interaction. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bellon, J., Eyssel, F., Gransche, B., Nähr-Wagener, S., & Wullenkord, R.
    (2022a) Theory and practice of sociosensitive and socioactive systems. Springer. Available athttps://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-36946-0. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑36946‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36946-0 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bellon, J., Gransche, B., Nähr-Wagener, S.
    (2022b) Soziale Angemessenheit. Forschung zu Kulturtechniken des Verhaltens. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑35800‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35800-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bennett, C. C., & Šabanović, S.
    (2015) The effects of culture and context on perceptions of robotic facial expressions. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 16 (2). 272–302. 10.1075/is.16.2.11ben
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.2.11ben [Google Scholar]
  9. Berger, S., Hatt, H., Ockenfels, A.
    (2017) Exposure to Hedione increases reciprocity in humans. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 11 (79). 1–8. 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00079
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00079 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bicchieri, C., & Chavez, A.
    (2010) Behaving as expected. Public information and fairness norms. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23 (2). 161–178. 10.1002/bdm.648
    https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.648 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bolden, G. B.
    (2011) On the organization of repair in multiperson conversation: The case of “other”-selection in other-initiated repair sequences. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 44 (3). 237–262. 10.1080/08351813.2011.591835
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.591835 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bou, M. P., & Saucier, G.
    (2016) The conceptual link between social desirability and cultural normativity. International Journal of Psychology, 51 (6). 474–480. 10.1002/ijop.12261
    https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12261 [Google Scholar]
  13. Böhle, K., & Bopp, K.
    (2014) What a vision: The artificial companion. A piece of vision assessment including an expert survey. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 10 (1). 155–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Brown, P.
    (2015) Politeness and language. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). Elsevier, 326–330. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑097086‑8.53072‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.53072-4 [Google Scholar]
  15. Busse, D.
    (2021) Soziale Angemessenheit: Eine Problem-Exposition aus wissensanalytischer Sicht. [Social appropriateness: A exposition of the problem from a science-analytical point of view]. Soziale Angemessenheit – Forschung zu Kulturtechniken des Verhaltens. [Social appropriateness – research on cultural behavioral techniques]. Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen, C., Hensel, L. B., Duan, Y., Ince, R. A. A., Garrod, O. G. B., & Beskow, J.
    (2019) Equipping social robots with culturally-sensitive facial expressions of emotion using data-driven methods. 14th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2019), 1–8. 10.1109/FG.2019.8756570
    https://doi.org/10.1109/FG.2019.8756570 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chiang, Y., Chu, T., Lim, C. D., Wu, T., Tseng, S., & Fu, L.
    (2014) Personalizing robot behavior for interruption in social human-robot interaction. IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts, 44–49. 10.1109/ARSO.2014.7020978
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO.2014.7020978 [Google Scholar]
  18. Clegg, J. W.
    (2012) The importance of feeling awkward: A dialogical narrative phenomenology of socially awkward situations. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 9 (3). 262–278. 10.1080/14780887.2010.500357
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2010.500357 [Google Scholar]
  19. Coeckelbergh, M.
    (2012) “How I learned to love the robot”: capabilities, information technologies, and elderly care. The capability approach, technology and design. Springer. 77–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Costello, B. J.
    (2017) Social control theory. Preventing crime and violence. Springer. 31–41. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑44124‑5_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44124-5_4 [Google Scholar]
  21. Creanza, N., Kolodny, O., & Feldman, M. W.
    (2017) Cultural evolutionary theory. How culture evolves and why it matters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (30), 7782–7789. 10.1073/pnas.1620732114
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620732114 [Google Scholar]
  22. Curtin, M.
    (1985) A question of manners. Status and gender in etiquette and courtesy. The Journal of Modern History, 57 (3). 396–423. 10.1086/242859
    https://doi.org/10.1086/242859 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dautenhahn, Kerstin
    2007 Socially intelligent robots: Dimensions of human-robot interaction. InSocial intelligence: From brain to culture, eds.Nathan Emery, Nicola Clayton, Chris Frith, Nathan (Ed) Emery, Nicola (Ed) Clayton and Chris (Ed) Frith, 313–351. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. 10.1098/rstb.2006.2004
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2004 [Google Scholar]
  24. De Graaf, M., Allouch, S. B., & Van Diik, J.
    (2017) Why do they refuse to use my robot?: Reasons for non-use derived from a long-term home study. 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 224–233. 10.1145/2909824.3020236
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020236 [Google Scholar]
  25. De Waal, F.
    (2009) The origins of fairness. New Scientist, 2041. 34–35. 10.1016/S0262‑4079(09)63003‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(09)63003-7 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dirks, M. A., Treat, T. A., & Weersing, V. R.
    (2007) Integrating theoretical, measurement, and intervention models of youth social competence. Clinical Psychology Review, 27 (3). 327–347. 10.1016/j.cpr.2006.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  27. Dreyer, W., & Hößler, U.
    (2011) Perspektiven interkultureller Kompetenz. Mit 11 Tabellen. [Perspectives of intercultural competence. With 11 tables]. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 10.13109/9783666403323
    https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666403323 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fangl, Y., Lu, T., Zhang, P., Gu, H., & Gu, N.
    (2018) Exploring the effect of politeness on user contribution in Q&A sites: A case study of stack overflow. 22nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), 713–718. 10.1109/CSCWD.2018.8465173
    https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD.2018.8465173 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U.
    (2004) Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8 (4). 185–190. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fein, M. L.
    (2012) Human hierarchies: A general theory. Transaction Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fiske, S. T., Dupree, C. H., Nicolas, G., & Swencionis, J. K.
    (2016) Status, power, and intergroup relations. The personal is the societal. Current Opinion in Psychology, 111, 44–48. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.012 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fraser, B.
    (1990) Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics14 (2), 219–236. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90081‑N
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N [Google Scholar]
  33. Frese, M.
    (2015) Cultural practices, norms, and values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46 (10). 1327–1330. 10.1177/0022022115600267
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115600267 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gelfand, M. J., Harrington, J. R., & Jackson, J. C.
    (2017) The strength of social norms across human groups. Perspectives on psychological science: A journal of the Association for Psychological Science12 (5), 800–809. 10.1177/1745691617708631
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708631 [Google Scholar]
  35. Golman, R.
    (2016) Good manners. Signaling social preferences. Theory and Decision, 81 (1), 73–88. 10.1007/s11238‑015‑9527‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-015-9527-7 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gransche, B.
    (2019) A Ulysses Pact with Artificial Systems. How to Deliberately Change the Objective Spirit with Cultured AI. Computer Ethics-Philosophical Enquiry (CEPE) Proceedings 2019 (1), 16–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gudykunst, William
    1983 Uncertainty reduction and predictability of behaviour in low- and high-context structures. An exploratory study. Communication Quarterly31 (1): 49–55. 10.1080/01463378309369485
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378309369485 [Google Scholar]
  38. Habermas, J., & Luhmann, N.
    (1990) Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie – Was leistet die Systemforschung?. [Theory of societoy or social technology – what does systems research achieve?]. Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hedaoo, S., Williams, A., Wadgaonkar, C., & Knight, H.
    (2019) A robot barista comments on its clients: social attitudes toward robot data use. 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 66–74. 10.1109/HRI.2019.8673021
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673021 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hoffmann, L.
    (2017) That robot touch that means so much: On the psychological effects of human-robot touch. Doctoral dissertation, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany.
  41. Hofstede, Gert Jan
    2015 Culture’s causes: The next challenge. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal22 (4): 545–569. 10.1108/CCM‑03‑2015‑0040
    https://doi.org/10.1108/CCM-03-2015-0040 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hofstede, G.
    (1984) Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol.51). Beverly Hills: Sage.s
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Honig, S., & Oron-Gilad, T.
    (2018) Understanding and resolving failures in human-robot interaction: Literature review and model development. Frontiers in psychology, 91, 861–882. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00861
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00861 [Google Scholar]
  44. Honneth, A.
    (2004) Das Ich im Wir: Anerkennung als Triebkraft von Gruppen. Ringen um Anerkennung in und zwischen Gruppen. [The I on the We: Appreciation as driving force of groups. Struggle for appreciation in and between groups.] Jahrbuch für Gruppenanalyse und ihre Anwendungen [Yearbook of group analysis and its applications], 91. 5–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hunter, E. B.
    (1939) Personality development: A practical self-teaching course comprising health, posture, dress, grooming, voice and speech, conversation, social and business etiquette, self-confidence, poise, living and working with others, acquiring background, improvement of mind and character, achieving success and happiness. Your way of life, 51. Better-Speech Institute of America. 10.1037/14933‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/14933-000 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hupfeld-Heinemann, J., & Helversen, B.
    (2009) Models of decision making on guilt and sanctions. Social Psychology of Punishment of Crime, 275–293.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Ionescu, A. M., & Hierold, C.
    (2011) Guardian angels for a smarter life: enabling a zero-power technological platform for autonomous smart systems. Procedia Computer Science, 71. 43–46. 10.1016/j.procs.2011.12.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2011.12.016 [Google Scholar]
  48. Ishi, C. T., Mikata, R., & Ishiguro, H.
    (2020) Person-directed pointing gestures and inter-personal relationship: Expression of politeness to friendliness by android robots. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5 (4). 6081–6088. 10.1109/LRA.2020.3011354
    https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.3011354 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kant, I.
    (2006) Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Knoop, E., Bacher, M., Wall, V., Deimel, R., Brock, O., & Beardsley, P.
    (2017) Handshakiness: Benchmarking for human-robot hand interactions. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 24–28. 10.1109/IROS.2017.8206381
    https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2017.8206381 [Google Scholar]
  51. Konok, V., Korcsok, B., Miklósi, Á., & Gácsi, M.
    (2018) Should we love robots? – The most liked qualities of companion dogs and how they can be implemented in social robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 801. 132–142. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kroneberg, C.
    (2011) Die Erklärung sozialen Handelns: Grundlagen und Anwendung einer integrativen Theorie. [The explanation of social behavior: Basis and application of an integrative theory]. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/Springer Fachmedien. 10.1007/978‑3‑531‑93144‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93144-9 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kühne, A.
    (1991) Normen, Werte und Regeln als Determinanten menschlichen Handelns. [Norms, values and rules as determinants of human behavior]. Individuelle und soziale Regeln des Handelns. Beiträge zur Weiterentwicklung geisteswissenschaftlicher Ansätze in der Psychologie. [Individual and social rules of behavior. Contributions to the development of humanistic approaches in psychology]. Asanger.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Langeveld, J. H., Gundersen, K. K., & Svartdal, F.
    (2012) Social competence as a mediating factor in reduction of behavioral problems. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56 (4). 381–399. 10.1080/00313831.2011.594614
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.594614 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lichtenstein, S., Gregory, R., & Irwin, J.
    (2007) What’s bad is easy: Taboo values, affect, and cognition. Judgment and Decision Making, 2 (3). 169–188. 10.1017/S1930297500000838
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000838 [Google Scholar]
  56. Luhmann, N.
    (1984) Soziale Systeme. [Social systems]. Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. (1996) Takt und Zensur im Erziehungssystem. [Tact and censorship in the educational system]. Zwischen System und Umwelt. Fragen an die Pädagogik. [Between system and environment. Questions to pedagogy]. Suhrkamp. 279–294.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. March, J. G.
    (1994) A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. McQuillin, E., Churamani, N., & Gunes, H.
    (2022) Learning socially appropriate robo-waiter behaviours through real-time user feedback. 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 541–550). 10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889395
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889395 [Google Scholar]
  60. Meyer, H., Varpio, L., Gruppen, L., & Sandhu, G.
    (2016) The ethics and etiquette of research collaboration. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 91 (12). e13. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001439
    https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001439 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mills, S.
    (2003) Gender and politeness. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  62. Moshkina, L., & Arkin, R. C.
    (2005) Human perspective on affective robotic behavior: a longitudinal study. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1444–1451. 10.1109/IROS.2005.1545343
    https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2005.1545343 [Google Scholar]
  63. Mussakhojayeva, S., Zhanbyrtayev, M., Agzhanov, Y., & Sandygulova, A.
    (2016) Who should robots adapt to within a multi-party interaction in a public space?. 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 483–484. 10.1109/HRI.2016.7451817
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451817 [Google Scholar]
  64. Nähr-Wagener, S.
    (2020) Anerkennungs- und Verdinglichungsprozesse im Kontext eines vergruppten, personalisierten Webs und soziosensitiver Mensch-Technik-Interaktionen. [Processes of appreciation and reification in the context of a grouped personalized web and sociosensitive human-technology interactions]. Industrie 4.0, Kultur 2.0 und die Neuen Medien – Realitäten, Tendenzen, Mythen. [Industry 4.0, culture 2.0 and new media – realities, tendencies and myths]. 77–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Nishida, H.
    (2005) Cultural schema theory. Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. Sage. 401–419.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Ohshima, N., Kimijima, K., Yamato, J., & Mukawa, N.
    (2015) A conversational robot with vocal and bodily fillers for recovering from awkward silence at turn-takings. 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 325–330. 10.1109/ROMAN.2015.7333677
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2015.7333677 [Google Scholar]
  67. Oliveira, J., Martins, G. S., Jegundo, A., Dantas, C., Wings, C., & Santos, L.
    (2017) Speaking robots: The challenges of acceptance by the ageing society. 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 1285–1290. 10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172470
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172470 [Google Scholar]
  68. Patrick Primeaux, S. M. Le & Veness, F. P.
    (2009) What is fair. Three perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 841. 89–102. 10.1007/s10551‑008‑9683‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9683-6 [Google Scholar]
  69. Peters, R., Broekens, J., & Neerincx, M. A.
    (2017) Robots educate in style: The effect of context and non-verbal behaviour on children’s perceptions of warmth and competence. Human-robot collaboration and human assistance for an improved quality of life, 449–455. 10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172341
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172341 [Google Scholar]
  70. Piddocke, S.
    (1968) Social sanctions. Anthropologica, 10 (2). 261–285. 10.2307/25604779
    https://doi.org/10.2307/25604779 [Google Scholar]
  71. Quaquebeke, N. van, & Eckloff, T.
    (2010) Defining respectful leadership: What it is, how it can be measured, and another glimpse at what it is related to. Journal of Business Ethics, 91 (3). 343–358. 10.1007/s10551‑009‑0087‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0087-z [Google Scholar]
  72. Rakoczy, H., & Schmidt, M. F.
    (2013) The early ontogeny of social norms. Child Development Perspectives, 7 (1). 17–21. 10.1111/cdep.12010
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12010 [Google Scholar]
  73. Raven, B. H.
    (2008) The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8 (1). 1–22. 10.1111/j.1530‑2415.2008.00159.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2008.00159.x [Google Scholar]
  74. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53 (2). 361–382. 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  75. Schank, R. C.
    (1975) Conceptual information processing. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. (1982) Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Scheutz, M., & Arnold, T.
    (2016) Are we ready for sex robots?. 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 351–358. 10.1109/HRI.2016.7451772
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451772 [Google Scholar]
  78. Schmitt, M. J., & Steyer, R.
    (1993) A latent state-trait model (not only) for social desirability. Personality and Individual Differences, 14 (4). 519–529. 10.1016/0191‑8869(93)90144‑R
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90144-R [Google Scholar]
  79. Schmitz, M.
    (2013) Social rules and the social background. The Background of Social Reality. Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑5600‑7_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5600-7_7 [Google Scholar]
  80. Schwartz, S. H.
    (1999) A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied psychology, 48 (1). 23–47. 10.1111/j.1464‑0597.1999.tb00047.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x [Google Scholar]
  81. Seidel, R.
    (2011) Interkulturelle Kompetenz. [Intercultural competence]. Praxis der interkulturellen Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie. Migration und psychische Gesundheit. [Practice of intercultural psychiatry and psychotherapy. Migration and mental health]. Elsevier, Urban & Fischer. 10.1016/B978‑3‑437‑24570‑1.10016‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-3-437-24570-1.10016-9 [Google Scholar]
  82. Stanton, C. J., & Stevens, C. J.
    (2017) Don’t stare at me: The impact of a humanoid robot’s gaze upon trust during a cooperative human–robot visual task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9 (5). 745–753. 10.1007/s12369‑017‑0422‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0422-y [Google Scholar]
  83. Stemmler, G., Bartussek, D., Hagemann, D., Spinath, F., Amelang, M., Hasselhorn, M., Schneider, S., & Kunde, W.
    (2016) Differentielle Psychologie und Persönlichkeitsforschung. [Differential psychology and personality research]. Kohlhammer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Thimm, C., & Kruse, L.
    (1991) Dominanz, Macht und Status als Elemente sprachlicher Interaktion. Ein Literaturbericht. [Dominance, power and status as elements of verbal interaction. A literature review]. Arbeiten aus dem Sonderforschungsbereich, 2451.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Tjomsland, J., Kalkan, S., & Gunes, H.
    (2022) Mind your manners! a dataset and a continual learning approach for assessing social appropriateness of robot actions. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9 (669420). 10.3389/frobt.2022.669420
    https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.669420 [Google Scholar]
  86. Tolmach Lakoff, R., & Bucholtz, M.
    (2004) Language and woman’s place. Text and commentaries. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Trommsdorff, G.
    (2015) Cultural roots of values, morals, and religious orientations in adolescent development. The Oxford handbook of human development and culture. An interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press. 377–395.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Visser, Thomas, Martijn Vastenburg, and David V. Keyson
    2011 Designing to Support Social Connectedness: The Case of SnowGlobe51:129–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Watzlawick, P.
    (2016) Man kann nicht nicht kommunizieren: Das Lesebuch. [One cannot not communicate: The reading book]. (2nd edn). Hogrefe AG.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Whitworth, B.
    (2005) Polite computing. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24 (5). 353–363. 10.1080/01449290512331333700
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290512331333700 [Google Scholar]
  91. Wiegel, V., & van den Berg, J.
    (2009) Combining moral theory, modal logic and mas to create well-behaving artificial agents. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1 (3). 233–242. 10.1007/s12369‑009‑0023‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0023-5 [Google Scholar]
  92. Wiese, E., Metta, G., & Wykowska, A.
    (2017) Robots as intentional agents: Using neuroscientific methods to make robots appear more social. Frontiers in Psychology, 81. 1663. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663 [Google Scholar]
  93. Wullenkord, R., Fraune, M. R., Eyssel, F., & Šabanović, S.
    (2016) Getting in touch: How imagined, actual, and physical contact affect evaluations of robots. 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 980–985. 10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745228
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745228 [Google Scholar]
  94. Ziem, A.
    (2008) Frames und sprachliches Wissen: Kognitive Aspekte der semantischen Kompetenz. Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110209419
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110209419 [Google Scholar]
  95. Zwijsen, S. A., Niemeijer, A. R., & Hertogh, C. M.
    (2011) Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people: an overview of the literature. Aging & mental health, 15 (4), 419–427. 10.1080/13607863.2010.543662
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2010.543662 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited

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