The Individual-Targeting Assumption: A Systematic Review of Proactive Robots in Human Group Settings

Robot initiative is a central challenge in multi-party human-robot collaboration. A robot that contributes without being addressed may provide timely support, but it may also disrupt coordination, divide attention, or interrupt turn-taking; a robot that waits to be addressed may preserve human control, but it may also miss opportunities to assist. We investigate this design challenge in a collaborative escape room in which pairs of participants work with a humanoid robot under either a reactive interaction model, where the robot responds only when addressed, or a proactive model, where it listens continuously, contributes autonomously, and periodically re-initiates interaction. We evaluate both models using puzzle-solving performance, interaction frequency, and participant ratings on the Godspeed and RoSAS scales. The proactive model substantially increases interaction frequency, whereas the reactive model shows a descriptively higher overall success rate (92.86% vs. 71.42%). The strongest differences emerge when prior experience and personality are taken into account: participants with LLM experience solve the early puzzles faster in the reactive condition, and participants with prior robot experience show modified evaluations of proactive and reactive interaction as do introverted participants. These findings demonstrate that the effects of robot initiative are simultaneously shaped by users' prior experience, personality traits and more generally by the needs of the group.

This work compares three interaction modalities for human-robot collaboration: passive, reactive, and proactive. We studied 18 participants assembling a seven-layer colored tower from memory while using nearby and distant blocks. In the passive modality participants worked alone; in the reactive modality a mobile robot helped only upon request; in the proactive modality it initiated brick delivery and error signaling without explicit requests. Although robot assistance increased completion time, most participants preferred collaboration: 67% preferred proactive behavior and 78% judged it most useful. These results suggest that timely proactive support can improve user experience in controlled collaborative tasks.

Robots designed to mediate human groups often fall into the solutionist trap: they are framed as sociable agents that fix problems such as conflict, disengagement, or lack of coordination. We suggest a different way of thinking. Rather than discrete agents, robots can be understood as situated elements of shared environments; catalysts and carriers of group experience whose meaning emerges through how people position, interpret, and interact with them. From this perspective, robots are not there to repair some ostensible dysfunctionality, but to enable group-level sense-making around care, norms, and identity. Our prior work on robotic street furniture suggests that this does not happen by imitating human sociality but by taking the shape of deliberately constrained, group-facing entities that happen and act for \textit{us} without being socially entangled as one of us. We thus understand robots in public spaces not in terms of autonomy or intelligence, but as a relational capacity. This implies designing robots not in our image or for our utility, but grounded in our needs in being and becoming together.