arXiv:1803.08343v1 [cs.RO] 22 Mar 2018

c 2017 IEEE Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in
any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating
new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in
other works.

A framework for Culture-aware Robots based on Fuzzy Logic
Barbara Bruno, Fulvio Mastrogiovanni, Federico Pecora, Antonio Sgorbissa and Alessandro Saffiotti

Abstract— Cultural adaptation, i.e., the matching of a robot’s
behaviours to the cultural norms and preferences of its user, is
a well known key requirement for the success of any assistive
application. However, culture-dependent robot behaviours are
often implicitly set by designers, thus not allowing for an easy
and automatic adaptation to different cultures. This paper
presents a method for the design of culture-aware robots,
that can automatically adapt their behaviour to conform to
a given culture. We propose a mapping from cultural factors
to related parameters of robot behaviours which relies on
linguistic variables to encode heterogeneous cultural factors in
a uniform formalism, and on fuzzy rules to encode qualitative
relations among multiple variables. We illustrate the approach
in two practical case studies.

I. I NTRODUCTION
In 2013, in a series of experiments involving Arab and
German participants, people were asked to place a Nao robot
at a suitable distance to hold a conversation with them [1].
None of the participants was used to interact with a robot on
a daily basis, but they all had plenty of experience in talking
with other people. As a consequence, they placed the robot at
a distance they deemed appropriate for a conversation among
two persons, unconsciously assuming that a robot should
not be too far from a human. The experiment highlighted
a difference in the behaviour of the Arab and the German
participants, with the latter placing the robot farther (approx.
85 cm) than the former (approx. 65 cm), in accordance with
the social norms of their respective cultures.
The influence of a person’s culture on his attitude towards,
and preferences in the interaction with, a robot is the subject
of relevant and ongoing research [2]. So far, literature findings suggest that people from different cultures not only have
different preferences concerning how the robot should be and
behave [3], but also tend to prefer a robot that better complies
with the social norms of their own culture, in aspects such
as the verbal [4], [5], [6] and non-verbal behaviour [7] and
the interpersonal distance [1], [8].
This preference does not merely affect the likeability of
the robot. In a series of studies involving US, Chinese and
German participants (later extended to include four other
nationalities [7], [6]), people were asked to take decisions
on an unfamiliar topic with the possibility of relying on the
suggestions of a robot assistant [3], [4], [5]. Experimenters
found that the robot’s communication style has a direct
impact on the number of times a person follows its advice,
B. Bruno, F. Mastrogiovanni and A. Sgorbissa are with the Department of
Informatics, Bioengineering, Robotics and Systems Engineering, University
of Genova, Via Opera Pia 13, 16145 Genova, Italy.
F. Pecora and A. Saffiotti are with the AASS Cognitive Robotic Systems
Lab, Örebro University, Fakultetsgatan 1, S-70182 Örebro, Sweden.
Corresponding author’s email: barbara.bruno@unige.it.

suggesting that people tend to trust more a robot which
follows their same communication conventions.
Needless to say, to design a trustworthy robot is a key
requirement for the success of any assistive application.
However, culture-dependent robot behaviours are often implicitly set by designers, which makes it hard to allow for
an easy and automatic adaptation to different cultures.
CARESSES1 is an EU-Japanese 3-year project that aims to
develop and evaluate a culturally competent robot for elderly
care. One of the project’s goals is to make robots able to
automatically adapt their behaviour to conform to a given
culture; this article explores one way to achieve that goal: to
devise a mapping from cultural factors to related parameters
of the robot behaviours, that allows for both lateral adaptation
(i.e., to switch from one person to another) and longitudinal
adaptation (i.e., to follow a person’s evolution over time).
This goal brings about two main challenges:
1) culture is heterogeneous: to allow for different cultural
factors, such as nationality and net income, to influence
the same robot behaviour we have to find a homogeneous space for their representation;
2) relations between cultural factors and robot behaviours
are usually qualitative, and in many cases incomplete:
to encode such knowledge we have to find a way to
define the above mapping in qualitative, natural terms.
We address the above challenges using techniques from
fuzzy logic and fuzzy inference systems. Fuzzy logic provides us with tools to encode heterogeneous factors in
a uniform formalism (linguistic variables), and to encode
qualitative relations among multiple variables (fuzzy rules).
The contribution of this paper is two-fold: (i) we propose
a way to define and implement a function from variables
associated with cultural factors (henceforth referred to as
cultural variables) to robot behaviour parameters, which
meets the two challenges above; (ii) we describe a method
for the automatic mapping of cultural variables to linguistic
variables, which relies on subtractive clustering and regression. To the best of our knowledge, the work reported in
this paper is the first attempt to formalize a general mapping
between cultural factors and robot’s behaviours.
The article is organized as follows. Section II provides
background knowledge on the cultural and robotic sides,
and formally defines the problem, while Section III describes
the proposed solution. Section IV presents two case studies
which outline the capabilities of the proposed framework,
and show that the results are compatible with data from the
literature in social sciences. Conclusions follow.
1 www.caressesrobots.org

Fig. 1.

General approach to cultural adaptation of robot’s behaviour.

II. P ROBLEM S TATEMENT
Our approach to make robots culturally aware is to use
information about the cultural context to modulate the parameters that control the robot’s behaviour. Figure 1 illustrates
this approach. The cultural context is represented by a point
in the space spanned by a number of cultural variables: in the
example, the context is determined by the cultural profile of
Johanna, the current user of the robot. The robot’s behaviour
can be modulated by a number of behaviour parameters,
like the speed of travel or the distance to keep from the
human user. Our goal is to define a mapping from cultural
contexts to behaviour parameters. The rest of this section
further discusses the cultural variables, the robot’s behaviour
parameters, and the mapping between the two.
A. Cultural variables
Culture is a dynamic, multifaceted, and mostly still mysterious concept, which makes it difficult to envision a fixed
and finite number of factors able to capture all its nuances.
Consequently, it is impossible to list and examine all the
cultural variables of relevance in a given context. However,
variables can be categorized in different types, or levels of
measurement, according to the nature of the information
within their admissible values. The best known classification
defines four levels: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio [9].
Nominal variables, such as gender, nationality and ethnicity, only allow for a qualitative classification.
Ordinal variables allow for a ranking of the admissible
values, while mathematical computations such as the difference are meaningless. As an example, the International
Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), maintained by
the UNESCO, is a framework which categorizes education
in levels, ranging from 0 (pre-primary education) to 8 (doctoral or equivalent). Hofstede’s dimensions for the cultural
categorization of countries are 6 scales in which the relative
positions of different countries are expressed with a score
on an arbitrary scale from 0 to 100 [10]. The dimension of
Individualism, for example, examines whether a nation has
a preference for a loosely-knit social framework, in which
individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their
immediate families, or a tightly-knit one, in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular
in-group to look after them.
Interval variables allow for the computing the difference
between items, but not the ratio, i.e., they use an equidistant
scale and a non-true zero. An example of interval variable is
the geographical latitude, which has two defined points (the
North pole and the South pole) separated into 180 intervals.

Fig. 2. Standard architecture of a robot high-level controller (in black) and
its relation with cultural adaptation (in blue).

Lastly, ratio variables possess a meaningful, unique and
non-arbitrary zero value and allow for all mathematical
computations. Examples include age, the number of working
hours in a day, and net income.
B. Robot’s behaviour parameters
Figure 2 shows in black the classical Sense-Plan-Act
hybrid architecture for a robot controller. In this architecture,
the Planning module is responsible for generating a plan,
often in the form of a sequence of robot actions, which
guarantees the fulfilment of the given task while taking
into account the requirements and constraints posed by the
environment. To do so, the Planning module requires detailed
information about the tasks it is expected to do and the
actions it can perform, which constitute the planning domain
and are usually specified a-priori. Each action A may have
parameters PA , as shown in Figure 2.
Let us consider, for example, a mobile, humanoid robot
for the physical assistance of elderly people. The planning
domain of the robot may include actions such as Reach user
and Greet person. The action Greet person has a parameter
that specifies whether its realization should be verbal, thus
requiring the robot to utter a specific sentence; gestural, thus
requiring the robot to wave a hand, or bow and nod with
the head; or both. When planning a greeting action, the
Planning module also computes the values of its parameters.
Interestingly, since different types of greeting are suitable for
different cultures, this decision should take into account the
current cultural context.
An action typically includes several elementary behaviours, like navigating to a point, avoiding obstacles,
extending an arm or grasping an object. These behaviours
are executed by the Execution module, which is responsible
for: (i) adapting them to the status of the robot and any
change in the environment and (ii) issuing the commands
for the robot’s controller which will result in the desired
effects. Each such behaviour B may have parameters PB
that modulate its execution.
For example, the robot may have a behaviour Dock to user
that takes as parameters the approach direction and the
optimal distance to stop at for engaging in a conversation.
Once again, the value of these parameters may depend on
the preferences and cultural background of the user.

pre−primary

lower−secondary

post−secondary

bachelor

doctoral

Degree of membership

1

primary

short−tertiary

master

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

Fig. 3. A fuzzy inference system implementing the culture-to-behaviour
function in Figure 1 above.

upper−secondary

0.8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

ISCED

Fig. 4. Fuzzification of an ordinal variable of type Co , for which C 7→ LC.

C. Problem statement

C = Cn ∪ C o ∪ Ci ∪ C r
where Cn , Co , Ci and Cr are the sets of cultural variables
of type nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio, respectively.
Let us denote by P = {P1 , P2 , . . . , Pk } the set of all
culture-dependent robot parameters for a given application.
Given the sets C and P, our problem is to define a suitable
function f : C → P that maps values of cultural variables,
possibly of different types, to values of robot’s behaviours
parameters. In Figure 1 above, this function is represented
by the “culture-to-behaviour” arrow.
III. M ETHOD
A. The Fuzzy Inference System
We define the function f using a multiple-input multipleoutput Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) as shown in Figure 3.
The FIS implements the usual fuzzify—inference—defuzzify
pipeline [11], and it uses the following knowledge: (i) a
set of linguistic variables that encode the input (cultural
context) and the output (values of the robot’s behaviour
parameters); and (ii) a set of linguistic cultural adaptation
rules that encode how a given behaviour parameter depends
on a subset of the cultural variables. For any tuple of values
of the cultural variables ~c ∈ C, the FIS produces a tuple of
values for the robot parameters p~ ∈ P, thus implementing
the desired function f : C → P. The shape of this function
depends on the definition of the linguistic variables, and on
the content of the cultural adaptation rules.
There are three main reasons why we opt for a FIS to
realize our f function. Two of them are technical. First, a FIS
can be seen as a device to convert a linguistic specification
of an input-output relation (in the form of if-then rules) into
a continuous function. This feature perfectly matches our
needs, since the sources in the literature that discuss the
relation between cultural factors and behaviour parameters
typically do so in linguistic and qualitative terms, which can
be suitably encoded in the form of symbolic if-then rules.
Second, linguistic variables offer a convenient mechanism
to represent in a uniform way cultural variables of different
types, namely, the Cn , Co , Ci and Cr sets discussed above.
The third reason is conceptual. Fuzzy logic has been given
semantics in terms of similarity [12] and desirability [13],

toddler adolescent

adult

elderly

1

Degree of membership

Let us denote by C the set of cultural variables of
relevance. With no loss in generality, we may define:

pre−adolescent
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Age

Fig. 5. Fuzzification of a ratio variable of type Cr : the linguistic values
correspond to the developmental stages and all membership functions are
trapezoidal-shaped.

which fully justify its use in our work. Roughly put, suppose
that the cultural adaptation rules associate a given cultural
profile ~c ∈ C to parameter values p~ ∈ P. Then, the degree
of desirability of using p~ when the cultural profile is c~0 6= ~c
is proportional to the degree of similarity between c~0 and ~c.
The key step to realize the FIS of Figure 3 is the elicitation
of the linguistic variables and of the cultural adaptation rules.
The remaining parts of this section discuss these issues.
B. Linguistic variables
The first bit of knowledge that we need to encode is how
the input values, i.e., the values of the cultural variables,
should be grouped in qualitatively meaningful linguistic
variables. In general, and following [14], we represent a
linguistic variable by the quadruple:
hC, C, LC, µLC i
where C is the name of the variable (e.g., Age), C is
its domain (e.g., [0, 117] years), LC is the set of linguistic values LC that C can take (e.g., {toddler, pre −
adolescent, adolescent, adult, elderly}) and µLC is the
membership function defining the relationship between a
linguistic value and the domain values.
It is possible to devise 3 cases for the mapping of a cultural
variable C onto a linguistic variable.
1) {C, C, LC, µLC } are known: This case is trivial, and it
typically occurs with qualitative nominal or ordinal variables,
for which |C| is finite. As an example, the linguistic variable
corresponding to the ISCED variable is shown in Figure 4.

2) {C, C, LC} are known, µLC are not known: This
case typically occurs with quantitative variables for which
a qualitative description exists, and it requires the definition
of the shape of the membership functions. As an example,
the linguistic variable corresponding to the Age variable is
shown in Figure 5: the linguistic values are taken from the
stages defined in the field of developmental psychology and
the membership functions are set as trapezoidal-shaped.
3) {C, C} are known, {LC, µLC } are not known: In the
case of Hofstede’s Individualism dimension, for example,
most studies arbitrarily impose LC = {low, medium, high}
[15], [16], with a crisp mapping to the domain which only
depends on its range. However, we argue that the introduced
boundaries may be unnatural since the range is arbitrary,
and propose the extraction of the linguistic values and the
definition of the membership functions from available data.
Let us denote with C T = {cT1 , . . . , cTi , . . . , cTI } a set of
available measurements for the cultural variable of interest.
We propose a three-step procedure for the automatic
estimation of LC and all corresponding µLC on the basis of
C T , based on the intuition that we can define the linguistic
values LC as clusters on C T .
We rely on Subtractive Clustering [17] for the estimation
of the number of clusters to use and Fuzzy C-means Clustering [18] for the association of the points to the clusters.
More specifically, the Fuzzy C-means Clustering algorithm
computes for each point cTi its membership value µi,LC to
each cluster LC. Then, we set each membership function
µLC as a two-terms Gaussian function defined as:
µLC = α1 e

−

(c−β1 )2
2
γ1

+ α2 e

−

(c−β2 )2
2
γ2

where c spans the domain C and the parameters
α1 , β1 , γ1 , α2 , β2 , γ2 are estimated to best fit the distribution
of the values µi,LC .
The result for the case of the interval variable of Hofstede’s Individualism dimension is shown in Figure 7.
In addition to the linguistic variables representing the
input, we need to encode how the possible output values of
the robot’s behaviour parameters should be grouped in qualitatively meaningful linguistic variables. This is a standard
step in developing fuzzy controllers for robotic systems, and
we shall not discuss it here – see next section for an example.
C. Cultural adaptation rules
Once we have described the input and output space of our
FIS in terms of fuzzy linguistic variables, the inference systems allow us to describe relations between these linguistic
variables in natural language, by means of if-then rules specified over the respective linguistic values [11]. In our case,
the relation to describe is the one between a given vector of
values for the cultural variables, representing a given cultural
context, and the corresponding robot’s behaviour parameters.
The if-then rule encoding this relation can be elicited from
expert knowledge: the next section provides examples of
such rules. Another alternative, that we do not explore in
this paper, is to learn those rules from examples.

In practice, the inference system that we use in our tests
is composed of a fuzzy controller relying on Mamdani
implication and composition-based inference, and on the
Center-of-Area defuzzification method [11]. The next section
provides examples of the input-output functions realized by
our FIS using the above components.
IV. C ASE S TUDIES
The validation of the proposed method requires to identify
an application where cultural factors affect robot’s behaviour
parameters for which: (i) the relation between the cultural
factors and the parameters is known, albeit in qualitative
terms; (ii) there exists a dataset C T of measurements for
each cultural variable for which the codomain LC is not
known; and (iii) a number of tuples in the form of (~c∗ , p~∗ ) is
available for estimating the accuracy of the inferred mapping.
As anticipated in the Introduction, the influence of cultural
factors on the conversational distance, i.e., the distance
between two persons (or a person and a robot) engaged in a
conversation, is well known in the literature.
The first case study examines the relation between Hofstede’s dimension of Individualism and the conversational
distance, and shows that our system generates results about
the preferred distance that are in agreement with the literature. The second introduces gender as a second influencing
cultural variable, and shows that our system can combine the
impact of multiple cultural variables on the same parameter.
Both case studies have been implemented in MATLAB
(R2014a), with the Fuzzy Logic Toolbox (2.2.19) and the
Curve Fitting Toolbox (3.4.1).
A. From ‘Individualism’ to ‘Conversational Distance’
Let us denote by P the conversational distance robot’s
behaviour parameter. Literature specifies that suitable values
for P lie in the range P = [0.45m, 1.2m] [8] and that this
parameter is directly correlated with Hofstede’s dimension
of Individualism, that we denote by C [1], [15]. As noted
above, Individualism is an ordinal variable, which expresses
the relative positions of different countries with a score on
an arbitrary scale C = [0, 100]. The mapping between the
two variables is only known in a qualitative form [1], [15]:
countries with a high individualism score tend to
have larger values for the conversational distance
than countries with a low individualism score.
Our goal is to define a mapping C → P , induced by
the above qualitative knowledge, to tune the conversational
distance in accordance with the user’s nationality.
The first step is to define suitable linguistic variables
for the Individualism dimension. We follow the approach
outlined in Section III to compute an a-posteriori partition
based on the analysis of the existing data.
Literature provides the Individualism scores of 110 countries2 , shown in Figure 6. We use these scores as training
dataset C T for the Individualism variable. The x-axis of
2 The scores are publicly available at: http://geerthofstede.
com/research-and-vsm/dimension-data-matrix/

Individualism scores
100

Degree of membership

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
AFE AND

close

1

90

far

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
AUT BEL

BRA CHL CRO

EGY FIJ GERGBR HONIND

ITA

KOR

LIB

MAW

MZB NZL

PER PUE SEN SLV

SWE SYR

UAE

ZIM

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

conversationalDistance

Scores of 110 countries on Hofstede’s Individualism dimension.

Fig. 8. Description of the Conversational distance as a linguistic variable.

1

105

0.9

100

conversationalDistance

Fig. 6.

0.8

0.7

T

C
µLC1 (points)

0.6

µLC1 (function)

0.5

µLC2 (points)
µLC2 (function)

0.4

0.3

0.2

90
85
80
75
70
65

0.1

0
0

95

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

60
0

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

userIndividualism

Fig. 7.
Clustering & Fuzzification of the training set C T of the
Individualism cultural variable C.

Figure 7 spans the domain C and the blue dots mark the 110
scores (e.g., cT1 = 6 corresponds to the score of Guatemala
and cT2 = 8 corresponds to the score of Ecuador).
In accordance with the method outlined in Section III:
(i) the Subtractive Clustering algorithm identifies 2 as the
optimal number of clusters; (ii) Fuzzy C-means Clustering
computes the membership values µi,LC1 to cluster LC1
(orange dots) and the membership values µi,LC2 to cluster
LC2 (purple dots). Finally, each membership function µLC
is computed as the two-terms Gaussian function best fitting
the distribution of the values µi,LC . In Figure 7, the yellow
line corresponds to µLC1 and the pink line to µLC2 .
The second linguistic variable that we need is the one
representing the robot behaviour parameter P . For this, we
simply define the linguistic variable hP, P, LP, µLP i, with
LP = {close, f ar} as shown in Figure 8.
We are now in a position to encode the qualitative knowledge about the relation between the cultural variable and the
parameter variable. We do so using the following rules:


if C is LC1 then P is close
if C is LC2 then P is f ar

(1)

Using the linguistic variables above together with the
set of rules specified in (1), our FIS generates the desired
continuous mapping C → P, which is plotted in Figure 9.
Below are two examples of the values for the conversational distance generated from two different values of the
Individualism cultural factor, corresponding to the average
scores of Arab countries and of Germany, respectively. These
results agree with the experimental results in [1].
c = 38 → p = 69.9cm
c = 67 → p = 100.7cm

Fig. 9.

Individualism → Conversational distance given by (1).

B. From ‘Individualism’ and ‘Gender’ to ‘Conversational
Distance’
In addition to Hofstede’s Individualism dimension, gender
is another factor known to influence the conversational distance [19]. The mapping between the two cultural variables
and the robot parameter is again only qualitative:
countries with a high individualism score tend to
have larger values for the conversational distance
than countries with a low individualism score, and
males tend to have larger values for the conversational distance than females.
The fuzzification of Gender, that we denote with C2 , falls
into the second of the three cases examined in Section III:
the corresponding linguistic variable is shown in Figure 10.
We encode the above qualitative knowledge in the rules:

if




if
 if



if

C is LC1 and C2 is f emale then P is close
C is LC2 and C2 is f emale then P is medium
C is LC1 and C2 is male then P is medium
C is LC2 and C2 is male then P is f ar
(2)

and refine the linguistic variable associated with parameter
P as shown in Figure 11. The linguistic variables C, C2 , P
together with the set of rules specified in (2) generates the
non-linear mapping {C, C2 } → P shown in Figure 12. Notice
that the resulting mapping does not correspond to a simple
composition of independent mappings of the input variables
onto the output. As an example:
~c = [38, 0] → p = 63.63cm (Arab woman)
~c = [67, 0] → p = 84.7cm (German woman)
~c = [38, 1] → p = 87.51cm (Arab man)
~c = [67, 1] → p = 109.34cm (German man).

female

male

conversationalDistance

Degree of membership

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

100
90
80
70
60
1
0.8
0.6

0

0.4
0.2

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0

1

userGender

userGender

Fig. 10. Fuzzification of the nominal variable Gender (case 2): membership
functions have been arbitrarily set as trapezoid-shaped.

close

0

20

medium

Fig. 12.

40

60

80

100

userIndividualism

Individualism, Gender → Conversational distance given by (2).

R EFERENCES

far

Degree of membership

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

conversationalDistance

Fig. 11. Description of Conversational distance as a linguistic variable,
with LP = {close, medium, f ar}.

V. C ONCLUSIONS
The problem of designing culture-aware robots, able to
adapt their behaviour to conform to a given culture, has
emerged only very recently in the field of autonomous
robotics. The importance of this problem, however, will most
probably raise dramatically as robots enter our homes and
working spaces. The approach presented here is a first step in
building the capability to be culture-aware: we are not aware
of previous attempts in this direction. We speculate that our
approach can be used beyond robotics, to add culture-aware
capabilities to generic computer systems that interact with
humans. The approach has been illustrated on two simple
cases, and we have shown that it can produce results in
agreement with the literature in social psychology.
While these results are encouraging, more and larger
scale experiments are needed to fully validate our approach,
where the collaboration with experts in cultural diversity will
be essential to elicit the relevant knowledge. Work in this
direction is currently undergoing in the framework of the
collaborative EU-Japan project CARESSES.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work has been partly supported by a grant of the
Fondazione/Stiftelsen C.M. Lerici awarded to the first author;
by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International
Cooperation (MAECI) and the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research (MIUR) under grant No.
PGR00193 (WEARAMI) and by the European Commission
Horizon2020 Research and Innovation Programme under
grant agreement No. 737858 (CARESSES).

[1] G. Eresha, M. Häring, B. Endrass, E. André, and M. Obaid, “Investigating the influence of culture on proxemic behaviors for humanoid
robots,” in Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN),
IEEE Int. Workshop on, 2013, pp. 430–435.
[2] F. M. Carlucci, L. Nardi, L. Iocchi, and D. Nardi, “Explicit representation of social norms for social robots,” in Intelligent Robots and
Systems (IROS), 2015 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on, 2015, pp. 4191–4196.
[3] V. Evers, H. Maldonado, T. Brodecki, and P. Hinds, “Relational vs.
group self-construal: untangling the role of national culture in HRI,”
in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on, 2008,
pp. 255–262.
[4] P. P. Rau, Y. Li, and D. Li, “Effects of communication style and
culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots,” Computers
in Human Behavior, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 587–595, 2009.
[5] L. Wang, P.-L. P. Rau, V. Evers, B. K. Robinson, and P. Hinds,
“When in rome: the role of culture & context in adherence to robot
recommendations,” in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), ACM/IEEE
Int. Conf. on, 2010, pp. 359–366.
[6] S. Andrist, M. Ziadee, H. Boukaram, B. Mutlu, and M. Sakr, “Effects
of culture on the credibility of robot speech: A comparison between
english and arabic,” in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), ACM/IEEE
Int. Conf. on, 2015, pp. 157–164.
[7] G. Trovato, M. Zecca, S. Sessa, L. Jamone, J. Ham, K. Hashimoto,
and A. Takanishi, “Cross-cultural study on human-robot greeting
interaction: acceptance and discomfort by egyptians and japanese,”
Paladyn, J. of Behavioral Robotics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 83–93, 2013.
[8] M. P. Joosse, R. W. Poppe, M. Lohse, and V. Evers, “Cultural
differences in how an engagement-seeking robot should approach
a group of people,” in Collaboration across boundaries: culture,
distance & technology, ACM Int. Conf. on, 2014, pp. 121–130.
[9] S. S. Stevens, “On the theory of scales of measurement,” Science, vol.
103, no. 2684, pp. 677–680, 1946.
[10] G. Hofstede, G. J. Hofstede, and M. Minkov, Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Citeseer, 1991, vol. 2.
[11] D. Driankov, “A reminder on fuzzy logic,” in Fuzzy Logic Techniques
for Autonomous Vehicle Navigation. Springer, 2001, pp. 25–47.
[12] E. H. Ruspini, “On the semantics of fuzzy logic,” Int. J. of Approximate
Reasoning, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 45–88, 1991.
[13] ——, “Truth as utility: A conceptual synthesis,” in Uncertainty in
Artificial Intelligence, Int. Conf. on, 1991, pp. 316–322.
[14] L. A. Zadeh, “The concept of a linguistic variable and its application
to approximate reasoning,” Information sciences, vol. 8, no. 3, pp.
199–249, 1975.
[15] M. Rehm, N. Bee, B. Endrass, M. Wissner, and E. André, “Too close
for comfort?: adapting to the user’s cultural background,” in Humancentered multimedia, ACM Int. Workshop on, 2007, pp. 85–94.
[16] B. Lugrin, J. Frommel, and E. André, “Modeling and evaluating a
bayesian network of culture-dependent behaviors,” in Culture and
Computing, IEEE Int. Conf. on, 2015, pp. 33–40.
[17] S. L. Chiu, “Fuzzy model identification based on cluster estimation,”
J. of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 267–278, 1994.
[18] J. C. Bezdek, Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
[19] N. M. Sussman and H. M. Rosenfeld, “Influence of culture, language,
and sex on conversational distance,” J. of Personality and Social
Psychology, vol. 42, no. 1, p. 66, 1982.

