More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Effects of Anthropomorphism and Accountability on Trust in Human Robot Interaction

Authors:

Manisha Natarajan,

Matthew GombolayAuthors Info & Claims

HRI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

Pages 33 - 42

https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374839

Published: 09 March 2020 Publication History

Abstract

This paper examines how people's trust and dependence on robot teammates providing decision support varies as a function of different attributes of the robot, such as perceived anthropomorphism, type of support provided by the robot, and its physical presence. We conduct a mixed-design user study with multiple robots to investigate trust, inappropriate reliance, and compliance measures in the context of a time-constrained game. We also examine how the effect of human accountability addresses errors due to over-compliance in the context of human robot interaction (HRI). This study is novel as it involves examining multiple attributes at once, thus enabling us to perform multi-way comparisons between different attributes on trust and compliance with the agent. Results from the 4x4x2x2 study show that behavior and anthropomorphism of the agent are the most significant factors in predicting the trust and compliance with the robot. Furthermore, adding a coalition-building preface, where the agent provides context to why it might make errors while giving advice, leads to an increase in trust for specific behaviors of the agent.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (fp1395vf.mp4)

Supplemental video

Download
46.94 MB

MP4 File (p33-natarajan.mp4)

Download
25.78 MB

References

[1]

Wilma Bainbridge, Justin Hart, Elizabeth Kim, and Brian Scassellati. 2011. The Benefits of Interactions with Physically Present Robots over Video-Displayed Agents. International Journal of Social Robotics 3 (10 2011), 41--52. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12369-010-0082--7

[2]

Christoph Bartneck, Dana Kulic, Elizabeth Croft, and Susana Zoghbi. 2008. Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 1 (01 2008), 71--81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001--3

[3]

Jonathan Benitez, Alisa Wyman, Colleen Carpinella, and Steven Stroessner. 2017. The Authority of Appearance: How Robot Features Influence Trait Inferences and Evaluative Responses. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172333

[4]

Ewart de Visser and Raja Parasuraman. 2011. Adaptive Aiding of Human-Robot Teaming: Effects of Imperfect Automation on Performance, Trust, and Workload. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 5 (06 2011), 209--231. https: //doi.org/10.1177/1555343411410160

[5]

M. Desai, P. Kaniarasu, M. Medvedev, A. Steinfeld, and H. Yanco. 2013. Impact of robot failures and feedback on real-time trust. In 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 251--258. https://doi.org/10.1109/ HRI.2013.6483596

[6]

Stephen Dixon and Christopher Wickens. 2006. Automation Reliability in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Control: A Reliance-Compliance Model of Automation Dependence in High Workload. Human factors 48 (02 2006), 474--86. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006778606822

[7]

Brian Duffy. 2003. Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42 (03 2003), 177--190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921- 8890(02)00374--3

[8]

Mary T. Dzindolet, Linda G. Pierce, Hall P. Beck, Lloyd A. Dawe, and B. Wayne Anderson. 2001. Predicting Misuse and Disuse of Combat Identification Systems. Military Psychology 13, 3 (2001), 147--164. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1303_ 2 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1303_2

[9]

F. Eyssel, L. de Ruiter, D. Kuchenbrandt, S. Bobinger, and F. Hegel. 2012. "If you sound like me, you must be more human': On the interplay of robot and user features on human-robot acceptance and anthropomorphism. In 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 125--126. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157717

[10]

Julia Fink. 2012. Anthropomorphism and Human Likeness in the Design of Robots and Human-Robot Interaction. In Social Robotics, Shuzhi Sam Ge, Oussama Khatib, John-John Cabibihan, Reid Simmons, and Mary-Anne Williams (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 199--208.

[11]

Matthew Gombolay, Anna Bair, Cindy Huang, and Julie Shah. 2017. Computational design of mixed-initiative human--robot teaming that considers human factors: situational awareness, workload, and workflow preferences. The International Journal of Robotics Research 36, 5--7 (2017), 597--617.

Digital Library

[12]

Matthew C Gombolay, Reymundo A Gutierrez, Shanelle G Clarke, Giancarlo F Sturla, and Julie A Shah. 2015. Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human--robot teams. Autonomous Robots 39, 3 (2015), 293--312.

Digital Library

[13]

Matthew Craig Gombolay, Xi Jessie Yang, Bradley Hayes, Nicole Seo, Zixi Liu, Samir Wadhwania, Tania Yu, Neel Shah, Toni Golen, and Julie A. Shah. 2016. Robotic Assistance in Coordination of Patient Care. In Robotics: Science and Systems.

[14]

Peter Hancock, Deborah Billings, Kristin Schaefer, Jessie Chen, Ewart de Visser, and Raja Parasuraman. 2011. A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction. Human factors 53 (10 2011), 517--27. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0018720811417254

[15]

Kerstin Haring, Ariana Mosley, Sarah Pruznick, Julie Fleming, Kelly Satterfield, Ewart de Visser, Chad Tossell, and Gregory Funke. 2019. Robot Authority in Human-Machine Teams: Effects of Human-Like Appearance on Compliance. 63--78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3-030--21565--1_5

[16]

Samarendra Hedaoo, Akim Williams, Chinmay Wadgaonkar, and Heather Knight. 2019. A Robot Barista Comments on its Clients: Social Attitudes Toward Robot Data Use. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673021

[17]

S. Herse, J. Vitale, M. Tonkin, D. Ebrahimian, S. Ojha, B. Johnston, W. Judge, and M. Williams. 2018. Do You Trust Me, Blindly? Factors Influencing Trust Towards a Robot Recommender System. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). 7--14. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ROMAN.2018.8525581

[18]

L. U. Jensen, T. S. Winther, R. Jørgensen, D. M. Hellestrup, and L. C. Jensen. 2016. Maintaining trust while fixated to a rehabilitative robot. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 443--444. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451797

[19]

Jiun-Yin Jian, Ann Bisantz, and Colin Drury. 2000. Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics 4 (03 2000), 53--71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327566IJCE0401_04

[20]

Allison Langer, Ronit Feingold-Polak, Oliver Mueller, Philipp Kellmeyer, and Shelly Levy-Tzedek. 2019. Trust in socially assistive robots: Considerations for use in rehabilitation. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 104 (September 2019), 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.07.014

[21]

John D. Lee and Katrina A. See. 2004. Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors 46, 1 (2004), 50--80. https://doi.org/10. 1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 15151155.

[22]

Stephan Lewandowsky, Michael Mundy, and Gerard Tan. 2000. The dynamics of trust: Comparing humans to automation. Journal of experimental psychology. Applied 6 (07 2000), 104--23. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076--898X.6.2.104

[23]

Michael Lewis, Katia Sycara, and Phillip Walker. 2018. The Role of Trust in Human-Robot Interaction. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 135--159. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319--64816--3_8

[24]

P. Madhavan and D. A. Wiegmann. 2007. Similarities and differences between human--human and human--automation trust: an integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 8, 4 (2007), 277--301. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14639220500337708 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500337708

[25]

N. Martelaro, V. C. Nneji, W. Ju, and P. Hinds. 2016. Tell me more designing HRI to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 181--188. https: //doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451750

[26]

Molly C. Martini, George A. Buzzell, and Eva Wiese. 2015. Agent Appearance Modulates Mind Attribution and Social Attention in Human-Robot Interaction. In Social Robotics, Adriana Tapus, Elisabeth André, Jean-Claude Martin, François Ferland, and Mehdi Ammi (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 431-- 439.

[27]

M. B. Mathur and D. B. Reichling. 2009. An uncanny game of trust: Social trustworthiness of robots inferred from subtle anthropomorphic facial cues. In 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 313--314. https://doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514192

[28]

Kathleen L. Mosier and Linda J. Skitka. 1999. Automation Use and Automation Bias. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 43, 3 (1999), 344--348. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129904300346 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129904300346

[29]

Elizabeth Phillips, Xuan Zhao, Daniel Ullman, and Bertram F. Malle. 2018. What is Human-like?: Decomposing Robots' Human-like Appearance Using the Anthropomorphic roBOT (ABOT) Database. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 105--113. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171268

[30]

Aaron Powers, Sara Kiesler, Susan Fussell, and Cristen Torrey. 2007. Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. HRI 2007 - Proceedings of the 2007 ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - Robot as Team Member, 145-- 152. https://doi.org/10.1145/1228716.1228736

Digital Library

[31]

L. D. Riek, T. Rabinowitch, B. Chakrabarti, and P. Robinson. 2009. How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 245--246. https: //doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514158

[32]

Paul Robinette, Ayanna Howard, and Alan Wagner. 2017. Effect of Robot Performance on Human--Robot Trust in Time-Critical Situations. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems PP (01 2017), 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2017. 2648849

[33]

Maha Salem, Gabriella Lakatos, Farshid Amirabdollahian, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2015. Would You Trust a (Faulty) Robot?: Effects of Error, Task Type and Personality on Human-Robot Cooperation and Trust. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 141--148. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696497

Digital Library

[34]

S. S. Sebo, P. Krishnamurthi, and B. Scassellati. 2019. "I Don't Believe You": Investigating the Effects of Robot Trust Violation and Repair. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). ACM, 57--65. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673169

[35]

Smruti J. Shah and James P. Bliss. 2017. Does Accountability and an Automation Decision Aid's Reliability Affect Human Performance in a Visual Search Task? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 61, 1 (2017), 183--187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601530 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601530

[36]

Indramani L. Singh, Robert Molloy, and Raja Parasuraman. 1993. Automation- Induced "Complacency": Development of the ComplacencyPotential Rating Scale. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 3, 2 (1993), 111--122. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0302_2 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0302_2

[37]

Elena Torta, Elisabeth Kersten van Dijk, Peter Ruijten, and Raymond Cuijpers. 2013. The Ultimatum Game as Measurement Tool for Anthropomorphism in Human-Robot Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319-02675--6_21

[38]

Rik van den Brule, Ron Dotsch, Gijsbert Bijlstra, Daniel H. J. Wigboldus, and Pim Haselager. 2014. Do Robot Performance and Behavioral Style affect Human Trust? International Journal of Social Robotics 6, 4 (01 Nov 2014), 519--531. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0231--5

[39]

J. Wainer, D. J. Feil-seifer, D. A. Shell, and M. J. Mataric. 2006. The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. In ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. 117--122. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314404

[40]

Adam Waytz, Joy Heafner, and Nicholas Epley. 2014. The Mind in the Machine: Anthropomorphism Increases Trust in an Autonomous Vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 52 (05 2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005

[41]

Douglas Wiegmann, Aaron Rich, and Hui Zhang. 2010. Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 2 (11 2010), 352--367. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220110110306

[42]

J. Xu, D. G. Bryant, and A. Howard. 2018. Would You Trust a Robot Therapist? Validating the Equivalency of Trust in Human-Robot Healthcare Scenarios. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). 442--447. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2018.8525782

[43]

X. Jessie Yang, Vaibhav V. Unhelkar, Kevin Li, and Julie A. Shah. 2017. Evaluating Effects of User Experience and System Transparency on Trust in Automation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 408--416. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020230

Cited By

Sun NBotev J(2024)Digital Partnerships: Understanding Delegation and Interaction With Virtual AgentsNavigating the Metaverse - A Comprehensive Guide to the Future of Digital Interaction [Working Title]10.5772/intechopen.1006301Online publication date: 13-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1006301
Natarajan MXue Cvan Waveren SFeigh KGombolay MDastani MSichman JAlechina NDignum V(2024)Mixed-Initiative Human-Robot Teaming under Suboptimality with Online Bayesian AdaptationProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3663005(1454-1462)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3635637.3663005
Wang HLuo NZhou TYang S(2024)Physical Robots in Education: A Systematic Review Based on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge FrameworkSustainability10.3390/su1612498716:12(4987)Online publication date: 11-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124987
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Effects of Anthropomorphism and Accountability on Trust in Human Robot Interaction
1. Computer systems organization
  1. Embedded and cyber-physical systems
    1. Robotics
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. HCI design and evaluation methods
      1. User studies

Recommendations

Effects of anticipated human-robot interaction and predictability of robot behavior on perceptions of anthropomorphism
HRI '11: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction

Recent research has shown that anthropomorphism represents a means to facilitate HRI. Under which conditions do people anthropomorphize robots and other nonhuman agents? This research question was investigated in an experiment that manipulated ...
Toward an Understanding of Trust Repair in Human-Robot Interaction: Current Research and Future Directions

Gone are the days of robots solely operating in isolation, without direct interaction with people. Rather, robots are increasingly being deployed in environments and roles that require complex social interaction with humans. The implementation of human-...
The impact of intergroup bias on trust and approach behaviour towards a humanoid robot

As robots become commonplace, and for successful human-robot interaction to occur, people will need to trust them. Two experiments were conducted using the "minimal group paradigm" to explore whether social identity theory influences trust formation and ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

HRI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

March 2020

690 pages

ISBN:9781450367462

DOI:10.1145/3319502

General Chairs:
Tony Belpaeme
Ghent University, Belgium
,
James Young
University of Manitoba, Canada
,
Program Chairs:
Hatice Gunes
University of Cambridge, UK
,
Laurel Riek
UC San Diego, USA

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGAI: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
IEEE-RAS: Robotics and Automation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 March 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Georgia Tech Institutional Funding

Conference

HRI '20

Sponsor:

SIGAI
SIGCHI
IEEE-RAS

HRI '20: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

March 23 - 26, 2020

Cambridge, United Kingdom

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

124
Total Citations
View Citations
3,720
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)885
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)104

Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Sun NBotev J(2024)Digital Partnerships: Understanding Delegation and Interaction With Virtual AgentsNavigating the Metaverse - A Comprehensive Guide to the Future of Digital Interaction [Working Title]10.5772/intechopen.1006301Online publication date: 13-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1006301
Natarajan MXue Cvan Waveren SFeigh KGombolay MDastani MSichman JAlechina NDignum V(2024)Mixed-Initiative Human-Robot Teaming under Suboptimality with Online Bayesian AdaptationProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3663005(1454-1462)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3635637.3663005
Wang HLuo NZhou TYang S(2024)Physical Robots in Education: A Systematic Review Based on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge FrameworkSustainability10.3390/su1612498716:12(4987)Online publication date: 11-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124987
Alam ALwin MKhan AMubin O(2024)Impact of Robot Size and Number on Human–Robot PersuasionInformation10.3390/info1512078215:12(782)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/info15120782
Romero-C. de Vaca AMelendez-Armenta RPonce H(2024)Using Social Robotics to Identify Educational Behavior: A SurveyElectronics10.3390/electronics1319395613:19(3956)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13193956
Shen JDiPaola DAli SSap MPark HBreazeal C(2024)Empathy Toward Artificial Intelligence Versus Human Experiences and the Role of Transparency in Mental Health and Social Support Chatbot Design: Comparative StudyJMIR Mental Health10.2196/6267911(e62679)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.2196/62679
van de Hoef ALeewis SSmit KSlingerland MKaiser LSaukko Kvan Gend Rde Haas M(2024)Repeat After Me: Dynamic Workouts for The Wellbeing of Elderly Individuals with DementiaResilience Through Digital Innovation: Enabling the Twin Transition10.18690/um.fov.4.2024.40(679-692)Online publication date: 29-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.18690/um.fov.4.2024.40
Sogemeier DForster YNaujoks FKrems JKeinath A(2024)The Importance of Timing—An Expert Evaluation on Latencies for Voice AssistantsProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting10.1177/10711813241260290Online publication date: 10-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813241260290
Hinrichs MBui TSchneegass S(2024)Exploring the Effects of User Input and Decision Criteria Control on Trust in a Decision Support Tool for Spare Parts Inventory ManagementProceedings of the International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia10.1145/3701571.3701585(313-323)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3701571.3701585
Mckenna PAhmad MMaisva TNesset BLohan KHastie H(2024)A Meta-Analysis of Vulnerability and Trust in Human–Robot InteractionACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/365889713:3(1-25)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3658897
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents