International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 519–531 | Cite as

Do Robot Performance and Behavioral Style affect Human Trust?

A Multi-Method Approach
  • Rik van den Brule
  • Ron Dotsch
  • Gijsbert Bijlstra
  • Daniel H. J. Wigboldus
  • Pim Haselager


An important aspect of a robot’s social behavior is to convey the right amount of trustworthiness. Task performance has shown to be an important source for trustworthiness judgments. Here, we argue that factors such as a robot’s behavioral style can play an important role as well. Our approach to studying the effects of a robot’s performance and behavioral style on human trust involves experiments with simulated robots in video human–robot interaction (VHRI) and immersive virtual environments (IVE). Although VHRI and IVE settings cannot substitute for the genuine interaction with a real robot, they can provide useful complementary approaches to experimental research in social human robot interaction. VHRI enables rapid prototyping of robot behaviors. Simulating human–robot interaction in IVEs can be a useful tool for measuring human responses to robots and help avoid the many constraints caused by real-world hardware. However, there are also difficulties with the generalization of results from one setting (e.g., VHRI) to another (e.g. IVE or the real world), which we discuss. In this paper, we use animated robot avatars in VHRI to rapidly identify robot behavioral styles that affect human trust assessment of the robot. In a subsequent study, we use an IVE to measure behavioral interaction between humans and an animated robot avatar equipped with behaviors from the VHRI experiment. Our findings reconfirm that a robot’s task performance influences its trustworthiness, but the effect of the behavioral style identified in the VHRI study did not influence the robot’s trustworthiness in the IVE study.


Social robotics Trust Video stimuli Immersive virtual environments 

Supplementary material

12369_2014_231_MOESM1_ESM.doc (206 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (doc 206 KB)


  1. 1.
    Young JE, Hawkins R, Sharlin E, Igarashi T (2009) Toward acceptable domestic obots: applying insights from social psychology. Int J Soc Robot 1:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sztompka P (1999) Trust: a social theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sanfey A (2007) Social decision-making: insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science 318:598–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mayer R, Davis J, Schoorman F (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):709–734Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schoorman F, Mayer R, Davis J (2007) An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and future. Acad Manag Rev 32(2):344–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simpson JA (2007) Psychological foundations of trust. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 16(5):264–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee J, See K (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46(1):50–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211(4491):1390–1396CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Willis J, Todorov A (2006) First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-Ms exposure to a face. Psychol Sci 17(7):592–598Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oosterhof NN, Todorov A (2008) The functional basis of face evaluation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(32):11087–11092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dotsch R, Todorov A (2012) Reverse correlating social face perception. Soc Psychol Pers Sci 3(5):562–571. doi: 10.1177/1948550611430272 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaul TJ, Schmidt LD (1971) Dimensions of interviewer trustworthiness. J Couns Psychol 18(6):542–548. doi: 10.1037/h0031748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roll WV, D SL, Kaul TJ (1972) Perceived interviewer trustworthiness among black and white convicts. J Couns Psychol 19(6):537–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JYC, de Visser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Hum Factors 53(5):517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DeSteno D, Breazeal C, Frank RH, Pizarro D, Baumann J, Dickens L, Lee JJ (2012) Detecting the trustworthiness of novel partners in economic exchange. Psychol Sci 20(10):1–8. doi: 10.1177/0956797612448793 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brewer MB (1988) A dual process model of impression formation. Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K (1995) Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ Behav 10(1):122–142CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van ’t Wout M (2008) Friend or foe: the effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition 108:796–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chang LJ, Doll BB, van ’t Wout M, Frank MJ (2010) Seeing is believing: trustworthiness as a dynamic belief. Cogn Psycho 61:87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mumm J, Mutlu B (2009) Human–robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of artificial intelligence and simulation of behavior convention (AISB 09), Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Takayama L, Pantofaru C (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, St Louis, Missouri, pp 5495–5502Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Relating conversational expressiveness to social presence and acceptance of an assistive social robot. Virtual Real 14:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walters ML, Lohse M, Hanheide M, Wrede B, Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Green A, Hüttenrauch H, Dautenhahn K, Sagerer G (2011) Evaluating the robot personality and verbal behavior of domestic robots using video-based studies. Adv Robot 25:2233–2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walters ML (2008) The design space for robot appearance and behaviour for social robot companions. PhD Thesis, University of HertfordshireGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Gácsi M, Walters ML, Dautenhahn K (2010) Video prototyping of dog-inspired non-verbal affective communication for an appearance constrained robot. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interative communication. Principe de Piemonte, Italy, pp 632–637Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Syrdal DS, Otero N, Dautenhahn K (2008) Video prototyping in human–robot interaction: results from a qualitative study. In: Abascal J, Fajardo I, Oakley I (eds) Proceedings of the 15th European congerence on cognitive ergonomics: the ergonomics of cool interaction. ACM New York, NY, Madeira, Portugal, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Takayama L, Dooley D, Ju W (2011) Expressing thought: improving robot readability with animation principles. In: Proceedings of human–robot interaction conference: HRI 2011. Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 69–76Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dautenhahn K (2007) Methodology & themes of human–robot interaction: a growing research field. Int J Adv Robot Syst 4(1):103–108Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blascovich J, Loomis J, Beall A, Swinth K, Hoyt C (2002) Immersive virtual environment technology as a research tool for social psychology. Psychol Inq 13(2):103–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Groom CJ, Sherman JW, Conrey FR (2002) What immersive virtual environments can offer to social cognition. Psychol Inq 13(2):125–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dotsch R, Wigboldus DHJ (2008) Virtual prejudice. J Exp Soc Psychol 44:1194–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rinck M, Rörtgen T, Lange WG, Dotsch R, Wigboldus DHJ, Becker ES (2010) Social anxiety predicts avoidance behaviour in virtual encounters. Cogn & Emot 24(7):1269–1276. doi: 10.1080/02699930903309268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rinck M, Kwakkenbos L, Dotsch R, Wigboldus DHJ, Becker ES (2010) Attentional and behavioural responses of spider fearfuls to virtual spiders. Cogn & Emot 24(7):1199–1206. doi: 10.1080/02699930903135945 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tikhanoff V, Cangelosi A, Metta G (2011) Integration of speech and action in humanoid robots: iCub simulation experiments. IEEE Trans Auton Ment Dev 3(1):17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Woods S, Walters M, Koay KL, Dautenhahn K (2006) Comparing human robot interaction scenarios using live and video based methods: towards a novel methodological approach. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE international workshop on advanced motion control (AMC’06), New York. IEEE Press, Istanbul, Turkey, NY, pp 750–755Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yagoda RE, Gillan DJ (2012) You want me to trust a ROBOT? The development of a human–robot interaction trust scale. Int J Soc Robot 4:235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bagheri N, Jamieson GA (2004) Considering subjective trust and montioring behavior in assessing automation-induced ”Complacency”. In: Proceedings of the human performance, situation awareness and automation conference, SA Technologies, Marietta, GA, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Koay KL, Syrdal DS, Nehaniv CL (2009) An empirical framework for human–robot proxemics. In: New frontiers in human–robot interaction, Edinburgh, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Iwata H, Sugano S (2009) Design of human symbiotic robot TWENDY-ONE. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 580–586Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ambady N, Weisbuch M (2010) Nonverbal behavior. Handbook of social psychology. Harvard University Press, New York, pp 464–497Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Emery NJ (2000) The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 24(6):581–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Srinivasan V, Murphy R (2011) A survey of social gaze. Human–robot interaction (HRI). Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 253–254Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Todorov A (2008) Evaluating faces on trustworthiness: an extension of systems for recognition of emotions signaling approach/avoidance behaviors. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1124(1):208–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Delgado MR, Frank RH, Phelps EA (2005) Perceptions of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward during the trust game. Nat Neurosci 8(11):1611–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rik van den Brule
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ron Dotsch
    • 2
  • Gijsbert Bijlstra
    • 2
  • Daniel H. J. Wigboldus
    • 2
  • Pim Haselager
    • 1
  1. 1.Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and BehaviourRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenNetherlands
  2. 2.Behavioural Science InstituteRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations