International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 193–209 | Cite as

The Development of a Scale to Evaluate Trust in Industrial Human-robot Collaboration



Trust has been identified as a key element for the successful cooperation between humans and robots. However, little research has been directed at understanding trust development in industrial human-robot collaboration (HRC). With industrial robots becoming increasingly integrated into production lines as a means for enhancing productivity and quality, it will not be long before close proximity industrial HRC becomes a viable concept. Since trust is a multidimensional construct and heavily dependent on the context, it is vital to understand how trust develops when shop floor workers interact with industrial robots. To this end, in this study a trust measurement scale suitable for industrial HRC was developed in two phases. In phase one, an exploratory study was conducted to collect participants’ opinions qualitatively. This led to the identification of trust related themes relevant to the industrial context and a related pool of questionnaire items was generated. In the second phase, three human-robot trials were carried out in which the questionnaire items were applied to participants using three different types of industrial robots. The results were statistically analysed to identify the key factors impacting trust and from these generate a trust measurement scale for industrial HRC.


Human-robot collaboration Trust scale Industrial robot 


  1. 1.
    Ding Z, Hon B (2013) Constraints analysis and evaluation of manual assembly. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 62(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hägele M, Schaaf W, Helms E (2002) Robot assistants at manual workplaces: Effective co-operation and safety aspects. International symposium on robotics ISR 2002 / CD-ROM. October 7–11, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schraft RD, Meyer C, Parlitz C, Helms E (2005) Powermate—a safe and intuitive robot assistant for handling and assembly tasks. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, IEEE, Barcelona, pp 4047–4079Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Santis AD, Siciliano B, Luca AD, Bicchi A (2008) Atlas of physical human-robot interaction. Mech Mach Theor 43(3):253–270CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Unhelkar VV, Siu HC, Shah JA (2014) Comparative performance on human and mobile robotic assistants in collaborative fetch-and-deliver tasks. Human Robot interaction 2014. ACM, BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO (2011) Robots and robotic devices-safety requirements for industrial robots, Part 1: robots. international standards organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bortot D, Born M, Bengler K (2013) Directly or detours? How should industrial robots approach humans?. ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI 2013), IEEE, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walton M, Webb P, Poad M (2011) Applying a concept for robot-human cooperation to aerospace equipping processes, SAE International Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum Fact 39(2):230–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freedy A, de Visser E, Weltman G, Coeyman N (2007) Measurement of trust in human-robot collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on collaborative technologies and systems, OrlandGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen JY, Barnes MJ (2014) Human-agent teaming for multirobot control: a review of human factors issues. IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst 44(1):13–29 IEEECrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Groom V, Nass C (2007) Can robots be teammates? Benchmarks in human–robot teams. Interact Stud 8(3):483–500Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Park E, Jenkins Q, Jiang X (2008) Measuring trust of human pperators in new generation rescue robots. Proceedings of the 7th JFPS international symposium on fluid power, Toyom, pp 15–18Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Visser EJ, Parasuraman R, Freedy A, Freedy E, Weltman G (2006) A comprehensive methodology for assessing human-robot team Performance for use in training and simulation. Proceedings of the 50th Human factors ergonomics society, San Francisco, pp 2639–2643Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Fact 46(1):50–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verberne F, Ham J, Midden C (2012) Trust in smart systems: sharing driving goals and giving information to increase trustworthiness and acceptability of smart systems in cars. Hum Fact 54(5):799–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mazney D, Reichenbach J, Onnasch L (2012) Human performance consequences of automated decision aids: the impact of degree of automation and system experience. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 6(1):57–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parasuraman R, Molloy R, Singh I (1993) Performance consequences of automation-induced ‘complacency’. Int J Aviat Psychol 3(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dzindolet MT, Pierce LG, Beck HP, Dawe LA, Anderson WB (2001b) Predicting misuse and disuse of combat identification systems. Mil Psychol 13(3):147–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Visser E, Krueger F, McKnight P, Scheid S, Smith M, Chalk S et al. (2012) The world is not enough: trust in cognitive agents. In: Proceedings of the 56th annual HFES meeting, pp 263–267Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen JY, Barnes MJ (2012) Supervisory control of multiple robots: effects of imperfect automation and individual differences. Hum Fact 54(2):157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Desai M, Stubbs K, Steinfeld A, Yanco H (2009) Creating trustworthy robots: lessons and inspirations from automated systems. Paper presented at The AISB convention: new frontiers in human-robot interaction. EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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(3):235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hancock PA, Billings DR, Oleson KE, Chen JY, De Visser E, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of human-robot trust. Aberdeen proving ground, MD 21005-5425: US Army Research LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Singh IL, Molloy R, Parasuraman R (1993) Automation-induced “complacency”: development of a complacency-potential rating scale. Int J Aviat Psychol 3(2):111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muir BM, Moray N (1996) Trust in automation. Part 1. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 39(3):429–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jian X, Bisantz AM, Drury CG (2000) Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. Int J Cognit Ergon 4(1):53–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Master R, Gramopadhye AK, Melloy BJ, Bingham J, Jiang X (2000) A questionnaire for measuring trust in hybrid inspection systems. Paper presented at the industrial engineering research conference. DallasGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schaefer KE (2013) The perception and measurement of human-robot trust. Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    King N (1998) Template analysis. In: Gillian S, Catherine C (eds) Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research: a practical guide. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, pp 118–134Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kline TJB (2005) Psychological testing: a practical approach to design and testing. Sage Publications Inc, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lowenthal KM (1996) An introduction to psychological tests and scales. UCL Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harris D, Chan-Pensley J, McGarry S (2005) The development of a multidimensional scale to evaluate motor vehicle dynamic qualities. Ergonomics 48(8):964–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kaiser HF (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39(1):31–36CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kline P (1999) The handbook of psychological testing, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    deVellis RF (1991) Scale development: theory and application. Sage Publishing, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bartneck C, Kulic D, Croft E (2009) Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Inoue K, Nonaka S, Ujiie Y, Takubo T, Arai T (2005) Comparison of human psychology for real and virtual mobile manipulators. IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, ROMAN 2005, IEEE, pp 73–78Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Huber M, Rickert M, Knoll A, Brandt T, Glasauer S (2008) Human-robot interaction in handing-over tasks. 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 107–112Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mayer MP, Kuz S, Schlick CM (2013) Using anthropomorphism to improve the human-machine interaction in industrial environments (part II). In: Duffy VG (ed) Digital human modeling and applications in health, safety, ergonomics, and risk management. Human body modelling and ergonomics. Springer, Berlin, pp 93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1(4):319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bartneck C, Kanda T, Mubin O, Mahmud AA (2009) Does the design of a robot influence its animacy and perceived intelligence? Int J Soc Robot 1(2):195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Li D, Rau PL, Li Y (2010) A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. Int J Soc Robot 2(2):175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shiomi M, Zanlungo F, Hayashi K, Kanda T (2014) Towards a socially acceptable collision avoidance for a mobile robot navigating among pedestrians using a pedestrian model. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    van den Brule R, Dotsch R, Bijlstra G, Wigboldus DH, Haselager P (2014) Do robot performance and behavioral style affect human trust? Int J Soc Robot 6(4):519–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rosenthal-von der Pütten AM et al, Krämer NC (2015) Individuals’ evaluations of and attitudes towards potentially uncanny robots. Int J Soc Robot 7(5):1–26Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Prakash A, Rogers WA (2014) Why some humanoid faces are perceived more positively than others: effects of human-likeness and task. Int J Soc Robot 7(2):309–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Charalambous
    • 1
  • Sarah Fletcher
    • 1
  • Philip Webb
    • 2
  1. 1.Industrial Ergonomics and Human Factors Group, Centre for Advanced Systems, School of EngineeringCranfield UniversityBedfordUK
  2. 2.Aerostructure Assembly and Systems Installations Group, Centre for Advanced Systems, School of EngineeringCranfield UniversityBedfordUK

Personalised recommendations