Navigating Psychological Boundaries: A Boundary-Aware Interaction Policy for Adaptive Service Robots in Exhibitions
This study investigates how visitor psychological boundaries and visit motivations influence service preferences for adaptive service robots in exhibition spaces. The authors identify three core preference dimensions—proactive support, adaptive responsiveness, and autonomy-oriented minimal service—and propose a cost-sensitive decision model to optimize robot intervention strategies. The results demonstrate that service robots can successfully balance helpfulness and non-intrusiveness by tailoring interaction intensity to the visitor's psychological boundary state.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers and developers in human-robot interaction should read this to design non-intrusive, adaptive service robot policies.
What the document contains
This document addresses the structural dimensions of visitor service preferences for exhibition robots, analyzes how visit motivations impact psychological boundary regulation, and formalizes a boundary-aware interaction policy utilizing a cost-sensitive decision model.
The document lacks long-term field deployment evaluations across diverse cultural contexts and does not cover physical hardware safety regulations for industrial or domestic environments.
- Exhibition visitor service preferences divide into three latent dimensions: proactive support, adaptive responsiveness, and autonomy-oriented minimal service.
- Hedonic and epistemic visit motivations serve as key determinants of the permeability of visitor psychological boundaries.
- A cost-sensitive decision model can optimize robot intervention strategies by accounting for the asymmetric social costs of misclassification.
- Withholding or minimizing robotic intervention when visitors prefer autonomy prevents the service paradox and reduces social friction.
· Introduction · Results · Discussion · Methods · References · Funding Declaration
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
4/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
Withholding, delaying, or minimizing intervention constitutes a legitimate—and sometimes optimal—service strategy. By formalizing exhibition robot services as processes of adaptive boundary management, this study provides a foundation for designing personalized yet non-intrusive interaction protocols
Introduction
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
4/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
This factor represents a desire for autonomy, emphasizing minimal robot intervention to maintain an independent viewing environment.
Results
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
3/5Protection of personal data and private life
All data were anonymized in accordance with research ethics and privacy protection principles.
Methods
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
screening score · 2026-10-23