[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.5555/2906831.2906851acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Overtrust of Robots in Emergency Evacuation Scenarios

Published: 07 March 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Robots have the potential to save lives in emergency scenarios, but could have an equally disastrous effect if participants overtrust them. To explore this concept, we performed an experiment where a participant interacts with a robot in a non-emergency task to experience its behavior and then chooses whether to follow the robot's instructions in an emergency or not. Artificial smoke and fire alarms were used to add a sense of urgency. To our surprise, all 26 participants followed the robot in the emergency, despite half observing the same robot perform poorly in a navigation guidance task just minutes before. We performed additional exploratory studies investigating different failure modes. Even when the robot pointed to a dark room with no discernible exit the majority of people did not choose to safely exit the way they entered.

Supplementary Material

JPG File (hri2028.jpg)
suppl.mov (hri2028.mp4)
Supplemental video

References

[1]
Wilma A Bainbridge, Justin W Hart, Elizabeth S Kim, and Brian Scassellati. The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(1):41--52, 2011.
[2]
L. Benthorn and H. Frantzich. Fire alarm in a public building: How do people evaluate information and choose an evacuation exit? Fire and Materials, 23(1):311--315, 1999.
[3]
Munjal Desai, Poornima Kaniarasu, Mikhail Medvedev, Aaron Steinfeld, and Holly Yanco. Impact of robot failures and feedback on real-time trust. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, pages 251--258. IEEE Press, 2013.
[4]
Rita F Fahy and Guylene Proulx. Human behavior in the world trade center evacuation. Fire Safety Science, 5:713--724, 1997.
[5]
G. Gao, A. A. Clare, J. C. Macbeth, and M. L. Cummings. Modeling the impact of operator trust on performance in multiple robot control. In 2013 AAAI Spring Symposium Series, 2013.
[6]
W. Grosshandler, N. Bryner, D. Madrzykowski, and K. Kuntz. Report of the technical investigation of The Station Nightclub Fire. Technical report, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005.
[7]
Peter A Hancock, Deborah R Billings, Kristin E Schaefer, Jessie YC Chen, Ewart J De Visser, and Raja Parasuraman. A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(5):517--527, 2011.
[8]
John D Lee and Katrina A See. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1):50--80, 2004.
[9]
Raja Parasuraman and Christopher A Miller. Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4):51--55, 2004.
[10]
Paul Robinette, Ayanna M. Howard, and Alan R. Wagner. Timing is key for robot trust repair. In Seventh International Conference on Social Robotics, 2015.
[11]
Paul Robinette, Patricio A. Vela, and Ayanna M. Howard. Information propagation applied to robot-assisted evacuation. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2012.
[12]
Paul Robinette, Alan R. Wagner, and Ayanna M. Howard. Assessment of robot guidance modalities conveying instructions to humans in emergency situations. In RO-MAN. IEEE, 2014.
[13]
Paul Robinette, Alan R. Wagner, and Ayanna M. Howard. The effect of robot performance on human-robot trust in time-critical situations. Technical Report GT-IRIM-HumAns-2015-001, Georgia Institute of Technology. Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Machines, Jan 2015.
[14]
Daniel Safarik and Antony Wood. An all-time record 97 buildings of 200 meters or higher completed in 2014. In CTBUH Year in Review, 2014.
[15]
Maha Salem, Gabriella Lakatos, Farshid Amirabdollahian, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 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, pages 141--148. ACM, 2015.
[16]
D.A. Shell and M.J. Mataric. Insights toward robot-assisted evacuation. Advanced Robotics, 19(8):797--818, 2005.
[17]
Alan R. Wagner and Paul Robinette. Towards robots that trust: Human subject validation of the situational conditions for trust. Interaction studies, 16(1), 2015.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Comparing Norm-Based and Role-Based Strategies for Robot Communication of Role-Grounded Moral NormsACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/357171912:3(1-25)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2023
  • (2023)The Imperfectly Relatable RobotCompanion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3568294.3579952(917-919)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
  • (2023)Fresh StartProceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3568162.3576959(112-121)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
HRI '16: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction
March 2016
676 pages
ISBN:9781467383707

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

  • AAAI: American Association for Artificial Intelligence
  • Human Factors & Ergonomics Soc: Human Factors & Ergonomics Soc

Publisher

IEEE Press

Publication History

Published: 07 March 2016

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. evacuation robots
  2. human-robot interaction
  3. human-robot trust

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • Air Force Office of Sponsored Research
  • Georgia Tech Research Institute
  • Linda J. and Mark C. Smith Chair in Bioengineering

Conference

HRI '16
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

HRI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 45 of 181 submissions, 25%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)62
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Comparing Norm-Based and Role-Based Strategies for Robot Communication of Role-Grounded Moral NormsACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/357171912:3(1-25)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2023
  • (2023)The Imperfectly Relatable RobotCompanion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3568294.3579952(917-919)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
  • (2023)Fresh StartProceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3568162.3576959(112-121)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
  • (2022)Unpretty Please: Ostensibly Polite Wakewords Discourage Politeness in both Robot-Directed and Human-Directed CommunicationProceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction10.1145/3536221.3556615(181-190)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
  • (2022)Applied Affective ComputingundefinedOnline publication date: 25-Jan-2022
  • (2021)How to Evaluate Trust in AI-Assisted Decision Making? A Survey of Empirical MethodologiesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/34760685:CSCW2(1-39)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2021
  • (2021)Implicit Communication Through Social DistancingCompanion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3434074.3447222(499-504)Online publication date: 8-Mar-2021
  • (2021)Comparing Strategies for Robot Communication of Role-Grounded Moral NormsCompanion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3434074.3447185(323-327)Online publication date: 8-Mar-2021
  • (2020)Exposing Error in Poverty Management Technology: A Method for Auditing Government Benefits Screening ToolsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33928744:CSCW1(1-20)Online publication date: 29-May-2020
  • (2020)“I just shared your responses”Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33751884:GROUP(1-18)Online publication date: 4-Jan-2020
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media