International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 385–399 | Cite as

Automated Prediction of Extraversion During Human–Humanoid Interaction

  • Salvatore Maria AnzaloneEmail author
  • Giovanna Varni
  • Serena Ivaldi
  • Mohamed Chetouani


One of the most important challenges in robotics is to achieve natural and engaging interactions between humans and robots. Interpersonal interaction, the process by which two or more people exchange information through verbal and nonverbal messages, could be exploited by robots both to establish interaction and to inform about its quality. The production of social signals being influenced by individual factors, such as personality traits, is critical for robots to have personalized models of interaction. This paper focuses on estimating social traits such as human personality from the dynamics of interpersonal interaction. The work was carried out in the framework of the project engagement during human–humanoid interaction which focuses on understanding individual factors influencing joint human–humanoid actions. In particular, this work addresses the automated prediction of the Extraversion trait during a human–humanoid interaction. We show how it is possible to take into account the specificity of human–robot interaction scenarios by contextualizing personality through the attitude that participants show towards the robots. This attitude is influenced by the a priori knowledge that people have on social robotics, and their prior anxiety in interacting with them. The proposed model exploits a set of nonverbal features chosen according to literature in Psychology and Personality Computing. These features are adopted to characterize human behaviors and the dynamics of human–robot interaction. Experimental results highlight that it possible to predict Extraversion of the human partner from nonverbal behavior during human–robot interaction with an accuracy of 62%. A higher accuracy, 70%, is obtained from the computational model by explicitly combining the dynamics of interpersonal interaction and the attitude of the participants towards the robots. Results show that 120 s are needed to obtain such performance.


Social robotics Personality computing Social signal processing Nonverbal behavior 



This work was performed within the project EDHHI of Labex SMART (ANR-11-LABX-65) supported by French state funds managed by the ANR within the Investissements d’Avenir programme under reference ANR-11-IDEX-0004-02. The authors wish to thank the EDHHI team for the fruitful discussions and help in the experiments. The work was partially supported by the FP7 EU projects CoDyCo (No. 600716 ICT 2011.2.1 Cognitive Systems and Robotics).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no con ict of interest.

Ethical standard

The experimental protocol used in this work (Ivaldi et al., ”Engagement during human–humanoid interaction”, IRB n.20135200001072) received approbation by the local Ethics Committee (CERES) in Paris, France.


  1. 1.
    Ajzen I (2005) Attitudes, personality, and behavior. McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allport G (1999) Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aly A, Tapus A (2013) A model for synthesizing a combined verbal and nonverbal behavior based on personality traits in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 325–332Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ambady N, Rosenthal R (1992) Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 111(2):256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ambady N, Rosenthal R (1993) Half a minute: predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. J Personal Soc Psychol 64(3):431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andrist S, Mutlu B, Tapus A (2015) Look like me: matching robot personality via gaze to increase motivation. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 3603–3612Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anzalone SM, Boucenna S, Ivaldi S, Chetouani M (2015) Evaluating the engagement with social robots. Int J Soc Robot 7(4):465–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anzalone SM, Yoshikawa Y, Ishiguro H, Menegatti E, Pagello E, Sorbello R (2012) Towards partners profiling in human robot interaction contexts. In: International conference on simulation, modeling, and programming for autonomous robots. Springer, Berlin, pp 4–15Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Batrinca LM, Mana N, Lepri B, Pianesi F, Sebe N (2011) Please, tell me about yourself: automatic personality assessment using short self-presentations. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on multimodal interfaces. ACM, pp 255–262Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernieri FJ, Rosenthal R (1991) Interpersonal coordination: behavior matching and interactional synchrony. In: Feldman RS, Bernard R (eds) Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 401–432Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Biel JI, Gatica-Perez D (2013) The youtube lens: crowdsourced personality impressions and audiovisual analysis of vlogs. IEEE Trans Multimed 15(1):41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boucenna S, Cohen D, Meltzoff AN, Gaussier P, Chetouani M (2016) Robots learn to recognize individuals from imitative encounters with people and avatars. Sci Rep 6:19908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breazeal C (2003) Toward sociable robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):167–175CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Breazeal CL (2004) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burger J (1997) Personality. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Camurri A, Trocca R, Volpe G (2002) Interactive systems design: A kansei-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 2002 conference on New interfaces for musical expression. National University of Singapore, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cantor N, Kihlstrom JF (1987) Personality and social intelligence. Pearson College Division, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Costa P, McCrae R, Rolland J (1998) Neo-pi-r. inventaire de personnalité révisé. adaptation française. P. Rolland. Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Costa PT, MacCrae RR (1992) Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO FFI): professional manual. Psychological Assessment ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dautenhahn K (1998) The art of designing socially intelligent agents: science, fiction, and the human in the loop. Appl Artif Intell 12(7–8):573–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dautenhahn K (2004) Robots we like to live with? A developmental perspective on a personalized, life-long robot companion. In: 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2004 (ROMAN 2004). IEEE, pp 17–22Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Delaherche E, Chetouani M, Mahdhaoui A, Saint-Georges C, Viaux S, Cohen D (2012) Interpersonal synchrony: a survey of evaluation methods across disciplines. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 3(3):349–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dewaele JM, Furnham A (2000) Personality and speech production: a pilot study of second language learners. Pers Individ Differ 28(2):355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ester M, Kriegel HP, Sander J, Xu X et al (1996) A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. Kdd 96:226–231Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Feist J, Feist GJ (2009) Theories of personality. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher EducationGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):143–166CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fumagalli M, Ivaldi S, Randazzo M, Natale L, Metta G, Sandini G, Nori F (2012) Force feedback exploiting tactile and proximal force/torque sensing. Auton Robots 33(4):381–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Funder DC (2015) The personality puzzle: seventh international student edition. WW Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gaudiello I, Zibetti E, Lefort S, Chetouani M, Ivaldi S (2016) Trust as indicator of robot functional and social acceptance. An experimental study on user conformation to iCub answers. Comput Hum Behav 61:633–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hall ET, Edward T (1969) Hall: the hidden dimension, vol 20. Anchor Books, New York, p 71Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hara F, Kobayashi H (1995) Use of face robot for human–computer communication. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, 1995. Intelligent systems for the 21st century, vol 2. IEEE, pp 1515–1520Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hasnain SK, Mostafaoui G, Salesse R, Marin L, Gaussier P (2013) Intuitive human robot interaction based on unintentional synchrony: a psycho-experimental study. In: 2013 IEEE third joint international conference on development and learning and epigenetic robotics (ICDL). IEEE, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Iizuka Y (1992) Extraversion, introversion, and visual interaction. Percept Motor Skills 74(1):43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Iocchi L, Lázaro MT, Jeanpierre L, Mouaddib AI (2015) Personalized short-term multi-modal interaction for social robots assisting users in shopping malls. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 264–274Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ivaldi S, Anzalone SM, Rousseau W, Sigaud O, Chetouani M (2014) Robot initiative in a team learning task increases the rhythm of interaction but not the perceived engagement. Front Neurorobot 8:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ivaldi S, Lefort S, Peters J, Chetouani M, Provasi J, Zibetti E (2017) Towards engagement models that consider individual factors in hri: On the relation of extroversion and negative attitude towards robots to gaze and speech during a human-robot assembly task. Int J Soc Robot 9(1):63–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ivanov AV, Riccardi G, Sporka AJ, Franc J (2011) Recognition of personality traits from human spoken conversations. In: INTERSPEECH, pp 1549–1552Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL (1991) The big five inventoryversions 4a and 54Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Joosse M, Lohse M, Pérez JG, Evers V (2013) What you do is who you are: the role of task context in perceived social robot personality. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 2134–2139Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kamide H, Eyssel F, Arai T (2013) Psychological anthropomorphism of robots. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 199–208Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2004) Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Hum–Comput Interact 19(1):61–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N, Ishiguro H (2007) A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):962–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lee KM, Peng W, Jin SA, Yan C (2006) Can robots manifest personality? An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human–robot interaction. J Commun 56(4):754–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lehmann H, Saez-Pons J, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K (2015) In good company? Perception of movement synchrony of a non-anthropomorphic robot. PloS ONE 10(5):e0127,747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Leite I, Martinho C, Paiva A (2013) Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lippa R (1998) The nonverbal display and judgment of extraversion, masculinity, femininity, and gender diagnosticity: a lens model analysis. J Res Pers 32(1):80–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lippa RA, Dietz JK (2000) The relation of gender, personality, and intelligence to judges’ accuracy in judging strangers’ personality from brief video segments. J Nonverbal Behav 24(1):25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Maltby J, Day L, Macaskill A (2010) Pers Individ Differ Intell. Pearson Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    McCrae RR, Costa PT (2004) A contemplated revision of the neo five-factor inventory. Pers Individ Differ 36(3):587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mileounis A, Cuijpers RH, Barakova EI (2015) Creating robots with personality: the effect of personality on social intelligence. In: International work-conference on the interplay between natural and artificial computation. Springer, Berlin, pp 119–132Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mischel W (1999) Introduction to personality. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    McCrae RR (2009) The five-factor model of personality traits: consensus and controversy. In: The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. Cambridge University Press, pp 148–161Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Natale L, Nori F, Metta G, Fumagalli M, Ivaldi S, Pattacini U, Randazzo M, Schmitz A, Sandini G (2013) The icub platform: a tool for studying intrinsically motivated learning. In: Baldassarre G, Mirolli M (eds) Intrinsically motivated learning in natural and artificial systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 433–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T (2006) Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI Soc 20(2):138–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pandey AK, Alami R (2012) Visuo-spatial ability, effort and affordance analyses: towards building blocks for robots complex socio-cognitive behaviors. In: Workshops at the twenty-sixth AAAI conference on artificial intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pantic M, Pentland A, Nijholt A, Huang TS (2007) Human computing and machine understanding of human behavior: a survey. In: Artifical intelligence for human computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 47–71Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pianesi F, Mana N, Cappelletti A, Lepri B, Zancanaro M (2008) Multimodal recognition of personality traits in social interactions. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on multimodel interfaces. ACM, pp 53–60Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Qiu L, Lin H, Ramsay J, Yang F (2012) You are what you tweet: personality expression and perception on twitter. J Res Pers 46(6):710–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Quiroga RQ, Kreuz T, Grassberger P (2002) Event synchronization: a simple and fast method to measure synchronicity and time delay patterns. Phys Rev E 66(4):041,904MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Riek LD, Rabinowitch TC, Bremner P, Pipe AG, Fraser M, Robinson P (2010) Cooperative gestures: effective signaling for humanoid robots. In: 2010 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 61–68Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Salam H, Celiktutan O, Hupont I, Gunes H, Chetouani M (2016) Fully automatic analysis of engagement and its relationship to personality in human–robot interactions. IEEE Access. doi: 10.1109/access.2016.2614525
  62. 62.
    Scherer KR, Scherer U (1981) Speech behavior and personality. In: Speech evaluation in psychiatry. Grune & Stratton, New York, pp 115–135Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Takayama L, Pantofaru C (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human–robot interaction. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, pp 5495–5502Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tapus A, Mataric MJ (2008) Socially assistive robots: the link between personality, empathy, physiological signals, and task performance. In: AAAI spring symposium: emotion, personality, and social behavior, pp 133–140Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Thomas F, Johnston O, Thomas F (1995) The illusion of life: Disney animation. Hyperion, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Varni G, Avril M, Usta A, Chetouani M (2015) Syncpy: a unified open-source analytic library for synchrony. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on modeling INTERPERsonal SynchrONy And infLuence. ACM, pp 41–47Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Vernon PE (1933) Some characteristics of the good judge of personality. J Soc Psychol 4(1):42–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Vinciarelli A, Mohammadi G (2014) A survey of personality computing. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 5(3):273–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Vinciarelli A, Pantic M, Bourlard H (2009) Social signal processing: survey of an emerging domain. Image Vis Comput 27(12):1743–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Vinciarelli A, Pantic M, Heylen D, Pelachaud C, Poggi I, D’Errico F, Schroeder M (2012) Bridging the gap between social animal and unsocial machine: a survey of social signal processing. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 3(1):69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Williams JL (1971) Personal space and its relation to extraversion–introversion. Can J Behav Sci 3(2):156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Woods S, Dautenhahn K, Kaouri C, te Boekhorst R, Koay KL, Walters ML (2007) Are robots like people? Relationships between participant and robot personality traits in human–robot interaction studies. Interact Stud 8(2):281–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Zen G, Lepri B, Ricci E, Lanz O (2010) Space speaks: towards socially and personality aware visual surveillance. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Multimodal pervasive video analysis. ACM, pp 37–42Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salvatore Maria Anzalone
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giovanna Varni
    • 2
  • Serena Ivaldi
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Mohamed Chetouani
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire CHArt-THIM, EA4004Université Paris 8Saint-DenisFrance
  2. 2.Institut des Systèmes Intelligents et de Robotique, UMR 7222CNRS, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Université Paris 6ParisFrance
  3. 3.LARSEN, InriaVillers-lès-NancyFrance
  4. 4.Loria, UMR 7503CNRS, Université de LorraineVandoeuvre-lès-NancyFrance
  5. 5.Intelligent Autonomous SystemsTU DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations