Skip to main content

Blind Trust: How Making a Device Humanoid Reduces the Impact of Functional Errors on Trust

  • 1798 Accesses

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNAI,volume 12483)

Abstract

Humanoid robots are starting to replace information kiosks in public spaces, providing increased engagement and an intuitive interface. Upgrading devices to be humanoid in this fashion may have unexpected consequences relating to the new, more social, embodiment. We investigated how altering a voice-command calculator kiosk, by making it humanoid, impacts user trust and trust resilience after functional errors. Our results indicate that making a kiosk humanoid increases both overall trust and trust resilience, where it reduces the impact of functional errors on trust. As public kiosks continue to be replaced by humanoids, this highlights the importance of understanding the full impact of this embodiment change on interaction.

Keywords

  • Human-robot interaction
  • Social HRI
  • Trust
  • Robot error

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-62056-1_18
  • Chapter length: 13 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-62056-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.

References

  1. Admoni, H., Scassellati, B.: Social eye gaze in human-robot interaction: a review. J. Hum. Robot Interact. 6(1), 25 (2017). https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.6.1.Admoni

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Bainbridge, W.A., et al.: The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3(1), 41–52 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0082-7

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartneck, C., et al.: The influence of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment when interacting with robots. Paladyn J. Behav. Robot. 1(2), 109–115 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bartneck, C., et al.: To kill a mockingbird robot. In: HRI 2007. ACM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Booth, S., et al.: Piggybacking robots. In: Human-Robot Interaction. ACM (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Collins, E., et al.: The broader context of trust in HRI. In: Fisher, M., et al. (eds.) Dagstuhl Reports: Ethics and Trust: Principles, Verification and Validation, pp. 82–85

    Google Scholar 

  7. Desai, M., et al.: Effects of changing reliability on trust of robot systems. In: Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 73–80 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157702

  8. Eyssel, F., Hegel, F.: (S)he’s got the look. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42(9), 2213–2230 (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Flook, R., et al.: On the impact of different types of errors on trust in human-robot interaction. Interact. Stud. 20(3), 455–486 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18067.flo

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Geiskkovitch, D., et al.: Autonomy, embodiment, and obedience to robots. In: Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts, pp. 235–236. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Geiskkovitch, D.Y., et al.: Please continue, we need more data: an exploration of obedience to robots. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 5(1), 82–99 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Gordon, G., et al.: Can children catch curiosity from a social robot? In HRI 2015 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hancock, P.A., et al.: A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 53(5), 517–527 (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Harris, J., Sharlin, E.: (e)motion. In: RO-MAN. IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Heider, F., Simmel, M.: An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am. J. Psychol. 57(2)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Herse, S., et al.: Do you trust me, blindly? Factors influencing trust towards a robot recommender system. In: RO-MAN. IEEE (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jung, M.F., et al.: Using robots to moderate team conflict. In: HRI 2015. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kahn, P.H., et al.: “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev. Psychol. 48(2), 303–314 (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Kahn, P.H., et al.: Will people keep the secret of a humanoid robot? In: Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 173–180 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696486

  20. Kuchenbrandt, D., Häring, M., Eichberg, J., Eyssel, F.: Keep an eye on the task! How gender typicality of tasks influence human–robot interactions. In: Ge, S.S., Khatib, O., Cabibihan, J.-J., Simmons, R., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) ICSR 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7621, pp. 448–457. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_45

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Kwon, M., et al.: Human expectations of social robots. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, April 2016, pp. 463–464 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451807

  22. Li, D., et al.: A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2(2), 175–186 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0056-9

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Madhavan, P., et al.: Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Hum. Factors 48(2), 241–256 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Mann, J.A., et al.: People respond better to robots than computer tablets delivering healthcare instructions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 43, 112–117 (2015)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Mathur, M.B., Reichling, D.B.: An uncanny game of trust: In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2009 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moore, D., et al.: Making noise intentional: a study of servo sound perception (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020238

  27. Pak, R., et al.: Decision support aids with anthropomorphic characteristics influence trust and performance in younger and older adults. Ergonomics 55(9), 1059–1072 (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  28. Pan, Y., Steed, A.: A comparison of avatar-, video-, and robot-mediated interaction on users’ trust in expertise. Front. Robot. AI 3, 12 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  29. Park, E., et al.: The effect of robot’s behavior vs. appearance on communication with humans. In: Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 219–220 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957740

  30. Powers, A., et al.: Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In: Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 145–152 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1228716.1228736

  31. Ragni, M., et al.: Errare humanum est: erroneous robots in human-robot interaction. In: Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN, pp. 501–506. IEEE (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rea, D.J., Young, J.E.: It’s all in your head. In: Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 32–40. ACM Press, New York (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. CSLI Books (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Robinette, P., et al.: Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios. In: Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 101–108 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451740

  35. Roubroeks, M., et al.: When artificial social agents try to persuade people: the role of social agency on the occurrence of psychological reactance. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3(2), 155–165 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0088-1

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  36. Salem, M., et al.: To err is human(-like): effects of robot gesture on perceived anthropomorphism and likability. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5(3), 313–323 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0196-9

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  37. Salem, M., et al.: Would you trust a (faulty) robot? Effects of error, task type and personality on human-robot cooperation and trust. In: Proceedings Human-Robot Interaction (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sanoubari, E., et al.: Good robot design or machiavellian? In-the-wild robot leveraging minimal knowledge of passersby’s culture. In: Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Seo, S.H., et al.: Poor thing! Would you feel sorry for a simulated robot ? A comparison of empathy toward a physical and a simulated robot. In: Human-Robot Interaction (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sharma, M., et al.: Communicating affect via flight path exploring use of the Laban effort system for designing affective locomotion paths. In: Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 293–300 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Short, E., et al.: No fair! An interaction with a cheating robot. In: 2010 Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2010 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Singh, A., Young, James E.: A dog tail for utility robots: exploring affective properties of tail movement. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8118, pp. 403–419. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40480-1_27

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  43. Smedegaard, C.V.: Reframing the role of novelty within social HRI. In: 2019 Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2019 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ullman, D., Malle, B.F.: MDMT: multi-dimensional measure of trust, pp. 618–619 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  45. de Visser, E.J., et al.: Almost human: anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 22(3), 331–349 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  46. Wainer, J., et al.: The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 117–122 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Young, J.E., et al.: Evaluating human-robot interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3(1), 53–67 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0081-8

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  48. Young, J.E., et al.: Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(1) (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0006-y

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James E. Young .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Vattheuer, C., Baecker, A.N., Geiskkovitch, D.Y., Seo, S.H., Rea, D.J., Young, J.E. (2020). Blind Trust: How Making a Device Humanoid Reduces the Impact of Functional Errors on Trust. In: , et al. Social Robotics. ICSR 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12483. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62056-1_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62056-1_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62055-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62056-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)