A Touching Connection: How Observing Robotic Touch Can Affect Human Trust in a Robot

International Journal of Social Robotics (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

As robots begin to occupy our social spaces, touch will increasingly become part of human–robot interactions. This paper examines the impact of observing a robot touch a human on trust in that robot. In three online studies, observers watched short videos of human–robot interactions and provided a series of judgments about the robot, which either did or did not touch the human on the shoulder. Trust was measured using a recently introduced multi-dimensional instrument, which assesses people’s trust in a robot as being capable, reliable, sincere, and/or ethical. The first study showed that observed robot touch increased overall trust in the robot, especially for the sincere and ethical trust aspects, and led people to perceive the robot as more comforting, but also more inappropriate. A second study replicated the general pattern, even with a handshake preceding the touch; but in the context of the handshake the touch was seen as more inappropriate. A third study examined the joint impact of a handshake, touch, and information about the robot’s designed function. In the context of such information, observed touch was seen as even more inappropriate, which in turn decreased trust.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. 1.

    Andersen PA, Leibowitz K (1978) The development and nature of the construct touch avoidance. Environ Psychol Nonverbal Behav 3(2):89–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Andreasson R, Alenljung B, Billing E, Lowe R (2018) Affective touch in human-robot interaction: conveying emotion to the nao robot. Int J Soc Robot 10(4):473–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Arnold T, Scheutz M (2018) Observing robot touch in context: how does touch and attitude affect perceptions of a robot’s social qualities? In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. ACM, pp 352–360

  4. 4.

    Avelino J, Correia F, Catarino J, Ribeiro P, Moreno P, Bernardino A, Paiva A (2018) The power of a hand-shake in human-robot interactions. In: 2018 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 1864–1869

  5. 5.

    Bezemer J, Kress G (2014) Touch: a resource for making meaning. Aust J Lang Lit 37(2):77–85

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Blakemore S-J, Bristow D, Bird G, Frith C, Ward J (2005) Somatosensory activations during the observation of touch and a case of vision-touch synaesthesia. Brain J Neurol 128(Pt 7):1571–1583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bock N, Hoffmann L, Rosenthal-vd Pütten A (2018) Your touch leaves me cold, robot. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. ACM, pp 71–72

  8. 8.

    BodyLanguageCentral. What it means when someone touches your shoulder. Retrieved from https://bodylanguagecentral.com/what-it-means-when-someone-touches-your-shoulder/ (2019)

  9. 9.

    Burgoon JK (1991) Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture. J Nonverbal Behav 15(4):233–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chan AW-Y, Baker CI (2015) Seeing is not feeling: posterior parietal but not somatosensory cortex engagement during touch observation. J Neurosci 35(4):1468–1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chen TL, King C.-H, Thomaz AL, Kemp CC (2011) Touched by a robot: an investigation of subjective responses to robot-initiated touch. In: 2011 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 457–464

  12. 12.

    Crowell C, Scheutz M, Schermerhorn P, Villano M (2009) Gendered voice and robot entities: perceptions and reactions of male and female subjects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. St. Louis, MO

  13. 13.

    Crusco AH, Wetzel CG (1984) The midas touch: the effects of interpersonal touch on restaurant tipping. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 10(4):512–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Dougherty EG, Scharfe H (2011) Initial formation of trust: designing an interaction with geminoid-DK to promote a positive attitude for cooperation. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 95–103

  15. 15.

    Erceau D, Guéguen N (2007) Tactile contact and evaluation of the toucher. J Soc Psychol 147(4):441–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fisher JD, Rytting M, Heslin R (1976) Hands touching hands: affective and evaluative effects of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry 39(4):416–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Fukuda H, Shiomi M, Nakagawa K, Ueda K (2012) ‘Midas touch’ in human-robot interaction: evidence from event-related potentials during the ultimatum game. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. ACM, pp 131–132

  18. 18.

    Hall JA (1996) Touch, status, and gender at professional meetings. J Nonverbal Behav 20(1):23–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JY, De Visser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum Factors 53(5):517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hirano T, Shiomi M, Iio T, Kimoto M, Tanev I, Shimohara K, Hagita N (2018) How do communication cues change impressions of human-robot touch interaction? Int J Soc Robot 10(1):21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Hoff KA, Bashir M (2015) Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum Factors 57(3):407–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hoffmann L (2017) That robot touch that means so much: on the psychological effects of human-robot touch. Ph.D. thesis, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

  23. 23.

    Hornik J (1992) Tactile stimulation and consumer response. J Consum Res 19(3):449–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Hung L, Liu C, Woldum E, Au-Yeung A, Berndt A, Wallsworth C, Horne N, Gregorio M, Mann J, Chaudhury H (2019) The benefits of and barriers to using a social robot PARO in care settings: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr 19(1):232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    JASP Team (2019) JASP (Version 0.11.1) [Computer software]

  26. 26.

    Jones SE, Yarbrough AE (1985) A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch. Commun Monogr 52(1):19–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Jourard SM (1966) An exploratory study of body-accessibility. Br J Soc Clin Psychol 5(3):221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Law T, Chita-Tegmark M, Scheutz M (2020) The interplay between emotional intelligence, trust, and gender in human-robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 86:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Law T, Scheutz M (2021) Trust: recent concepts and evaluations in human-robot interaction. In: Nam CS, Lyons JB (eds) Trust in human-robot interaction: research and applications, chapter 2. Elsevier, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46(1):50–80

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Levav J, Argo JJ (2010) Physical contact and financial risk taking. Psychol Sci 21(6):804–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Malle BF, Fischer K, Young JE, Moon A, Collins EC (in press) Trust and the discrepancy between expectations and actual capabilities of social robots. In: Zhang D, Wei B (eds) Human-robot interaction: control, analysis, and design. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, New York

  33. 33.

    Malle BF, Ullman D (2021) A multi-dimensional conception and measure of human-robot trust. In: Nam CS, Lyons JB (eds) Trust in human-robot interaction: research and applications, chapter 1. Elsevier, San Diego, pp 3–25

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Nakagawa K, Shiomi M, Shinozawa K, Matsumura R, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2011) Effect of robot’s active touch on people’s motivation. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human-robot interaction. ACM, pp 465–472

  35. 35.

    Nass CI, Brave S (2005) Wired for speech: how voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Nie J, Park M, Marin AL, Sundar SS (2012) Can you hold my hand? Physical warmth in human-robot interaction. In: 2012 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 201–202

  37. 37.

    Nomura T (2017) Robots and gender. In: Legato MJ (ed) Principles of gender-specific medicine: gender in the genomic era. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 695–703

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Park E, Lee J (2014) I am a warm robot: the effects of temperature in physical human-robot interaction. Robotica 32(1):133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Phillips E, Zhao X, Ullman D, Malle BF (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, pp 105–113

  40. 40.

    Powers A, Kramer AD, Lim S, Kuo J, Lee S-l, Kiesler S (2005) Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In: ROMAN 2005. IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2005. IEEE, pp 158–163

  41. 41.

    Remland MS, Jones TS, Brinkman H (1995) Interpersonal distance, body orientation, and touch: effects of culture, gender, and age. J Soc Psychol 135(3):281–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Šabanović S, Bennett CC, Chang W-L, Huber L (2013) Paro robot affects diverse interaction modalities in group sensory therapy for older adults with dementia. In: 2013 IEEE 13th international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR). IEEE, pp 1–6

  43. 43.

    Schermerhorn P, Scheutz M, Crowell CR (2008) Robot social presence and gender: do females view robots differently than males? In: Proceedings of the third ACM IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. ACM Press, Amsterdam, pp 263–270

  44. 44.

    Shibata T, Mitsui T, Wada K, Touda A, Kumasaka T, Tagami K, Tanie K (2001) Mental commit robot and its application to therapy of children. In: 2001 IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics. Proceedings (Cat. No. 01TH8556). IEEE, vol 2, pp 1053–1058

  45. 45.

    Shibata T, Tanie K (2001) Physical and affective interaction between human and mental commit robot. In: Proceedings 2001 ICRA. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (Cat. No. 01CH37164). IEEE, vol 3, pp 2572–2577

  46. 46.

    Shibata T, Tashima T, Tanie K (1999) Subjective interpretation of emotional behavior through physical interaction between human and robot. In: IEEE SMC’99 conference proceedings. 1999 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (Cat. No. 99CH37028). IEEE, vol 2, pp 1024–1029

  47. 47.

    Shiomi M, Nakagawa K, Shinozawa K, Matsumura R, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2017) Does a robot’s touch encourage human effort? Int J Soc Robot 9(1):5–15

  48. 48.

    Shiomi M, Nakata A, Kanbara M, Hagita N (2017) A hug from a robot encourages prosocial behavior. In: 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 418–423

  49. 49.

    Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2011) False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci 22(11):1359–1366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Strait M, Canning C, Scheutz M (2014) Let me tell you! investigating the effects of robot communication strategies in advice-giving situations based on robot appearance, interaction modality and distance. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, pp 479–486

  51. 51.

    Torrey C, Fussell SR, Kiesler S (2013) How a robot should give advice. In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 275–282

  52. 52.

    Ullman D, Malle BF. The multidimensional measure of trust (MDMT), v1. Retrieved from http://research.clps.brown.edu/SocCogSci/ Measures/MDMT_v1.pdf

  53. 53.

    Ullman D, Malle BF (2018) What does it mean to trust a robot? Steps toward a multidimensional measure of trust. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. ACM, pp. 263–264

  54. 54.

    Ullman D, Malle BF (2019) Measuring gains and losses in human-robot trust: evidence for differentiable components of trust. In: 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 618–619

  55. 55.

    Willemse CJ, Toet A, van Erp JB (2017) Affective and behavioral responses to robot-initiated social touch: toward understanding the opportunities and limitations of physical contact in human-robot interaction. Front ICT 4:12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Willemse CJ, van Erp JB (2019) Social touch in human-robot interaction: robot-initiated touches can induce positive responses without extensive prior bonding. Int J Soc Robot 11(2):285–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Wilson BM, Harris CR, Wixted JT (2020) Science is not a signal detection problem. Proc Nat Acad Sci 117(11):5559–5567

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project was funded in part by National Science Foundation Grant IIS-1316809 and robot AFOSR Grant FA9550-18-1-0465.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. HRI Lab, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, USA

    Theresa Law & Matthias Scheutz

  2. Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA

    Bertram F. Malle

Authors
  1. Theresa Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bertram F. Malle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthias Scheutz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Scheutz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Law, T., Malle, B.F. & Scheutz, M. A Touching Connection: How Observing Robotic Touch Can Affect Human Trust in a Robot. Int J of Soc Robotics (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00729-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Robot touch
  • Human–robot trust
  • Social connection
  • Human–robot interaction