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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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
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
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)
Bartneck, C., et al.: To kill a mockingbird robot. In: HRI 2007. ACM (2007)
Booth, S., et al.: Piggybacking robots. In: Human-Robot Interaction. ACM (2017)
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
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
Eyssel, F., Hegel, F.: (S)he’s got the look. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42(9), 2213–2230 (2012)
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
Geiskkovitch, D., et al.: Autonomy, embodiment, and obedience to robots. In: Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts, pp. 235–236. ACM (2015)
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)
Gordon, G., et al.: Can children catch curiosity from a social robot? In HRI 2015 (2015)
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)
Harris, J., Sharlin, E.: (e)motion. In: RO-MAN. IEEE (2011)
Heider, F., Simmel, M.: An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am. J. Psychol. 57(2)
Herse, S., et al.: Do you trust me, blindly? Factors influencing trust towards a robot recommender system. In: RO-MAN. IEEE (2018)
Jung, M.F., et al.: Using robots to moderate team conflict. In: HRI 2015. ACM (2015)
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)
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
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
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
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
Madhavan, P., et al.: Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Hum. Factors 48(2), 241–256 (2006)
Mann, J.A., et al.: People respond better to robots than computer tablets delivering healthcare instructions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 43, 112–117 (2015)
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)
Moore, D., et al.: Making noise intentional: a study of servo sound perception (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020238
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)
Pan, Y., Steed, A.: A comparison of avatar-, video-, and robot-mediated interaction on users’ trust in expertise. Front. Robot. AI 3, 12 (2016)
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
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
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)
Rea, D.J., Young, J.E.: It’s all in your head. In: Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 32–40. ACM Press, New York (2018)
Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. CSLI Books (1996)
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Smedegaard, C.V.: Reframing the role of novelty within social HRI. In: 2019 Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2019 (2019)
Ullman, D., Malle, B.F.: MDMT: multi-dimensional measure of trust, pp. 618–619 (2019)
de Visser, E.J., et al.: Almost human: anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 22(3), 331–349 (2016)
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)
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
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: Wagner, A.R., 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)