Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Affective Responses to Trust Violations in a Human-Autonomy Teaming Context: Humans Versus Robots

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the increasing use of robots in a variety of applications, little is known about the emotional responses humans experience when a robot or a human commits a trust violation. The current paper compares the affective responses of humans paired with either a human or a robot confederate who committed trust violations. Additionally, the current paper utilizes new manipulations in the literature to experimentally manipulate the type of trust violation, namely ability, benevolence, and integrity violations. As expected, when a robot committed an ability violation participants’ positive affect decreased more than if the violation was performed by a human. When an integrity or benevolence violation occurred, participants had a greater decrease in positive affect when a human performed the violations than when a robot violated trust. Overall, participants experienced more negative affect with a human partner than a robot partner. Also, ability violations had stronger effects on negative affect than integrity violations. Results indicate humans do have different affective responses when trust is violated, depending on the type of violation as well as the partner performing the violation. Implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available from the first author.

References

  1. O’Neill T, McNeese N, Barron A, Schelble B (2020) Human–autonomy teaming: a review and analysis of the empirical literature. Hum Factors 1:1–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820960865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lyons, JB, Sycara K, Lewis M, Capiola A (2021) Human-autonomy teaming: Definitions, debates, and directions. Frontiers in Psychology 12:Article 589585. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.589585

  3. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrated model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 20:709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Colquitt JA, LePine JA, Zapata CP, Wild RE (2011) Trust in typical and high-reliability contexts: building and reacting to trust among firefighters. Acad Manag J 54:999–1015. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.0241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Colquitt JA, Scott BA, LePine JA (2007) Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J Appl Psychol 92(4):909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. De Jong BA, Dirks KT, Gillespie N (2016) Trust and team performance: a meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. J Appl Psychol 101:1134–1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mayer RC, Davis JH (1999) The effects of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment. J Appl Psychol 84(1):123–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Calhoun CS, Bobko P, Gallimore JJ, Lyons JB (2019) Linking precursors of interpersonal trust to human-automation trust: an expanded typology and initial experiment. J Trust Res 9(1):28–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1579730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim W, Kim N, Lyons JB, Nam CS (2020) Factors affecting trust in high-vulnerability human-robot interaction contexts: A structural equation modelling approach. Appl Ergonom 85:103056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lyons JB, Vo T, Wynne KT, Mahoney S, Nam C, Gallimore D (2021) Trusting autonomous robots: the role of reliability and stated social intent. Hum Factors 63(4):603–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820901629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wynne KT, Lyons JB (2018) An integrative model of autonomous agent teammate-likeness. Theor Issues in Ergonomic Sci 19:353–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2016.1260181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McAllister DJ (1995) Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad Manag J 38:24–59. https://doi.org/10.5465/256727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schaubroek JM, Peng AC, Hannah ST (2013) Developing trust with peers and leaders: impacts on organizational identification and performance during entry. Acad Manag J 56(4):1148–1168. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoff KA, Bashir M (2015) Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum Factors 57:407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46:50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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):517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208114172254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nam CS, Lyons JB (2021) Trust in human-robot interaction. Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hancock PA, Kessler TT, Kaplan AD, Brill JC, Szalma JL (2021) Evolving trust in robots: specification through sequential and comparative meta-analyses. Hum Factors 63(7):1196–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820922080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Williams M, Belkin LY, Chen CC (2020) Cognitive flexibility matters: The role of multilevel positive affect and cognitive flexibility in shaping victims’ cooperative and uncooperative behavioral responses to trust violations. Group & Organiz Manag 45(2):181–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120911224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chan ME (2009) “Why did you hurt me?” victim’s interpersonal betrayal attribution and trust implications. Rev Gen Psychol 13(3):262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Heider F (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Klackl J, Pfundmair M, Agroskin D, Jonas E (2013) Who is to blame? Oxytocin promotes nonpersonalistic attributions in response to a trust betrayal. Biol Psychol 92(2):387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.11.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cohen M, Dienhart J (2013) Moral and amoral conceptions of trust, with an application in organizational ethics. J Bus Ethics 112(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1218-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lazarus RS (1999) Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. Springer

  25. Stokes CK, Lyons JB, Littlejohn K, Natarian J, Case E, Speranza N (2010) Accounting for the human in cyberspace: Effects of mood on trust in automation. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems 180–187, Chicago, IL. https://doi.org/10.1109/CTS.2010.5478512

  26. Dunn JR, Schweitzer ME (2005) Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. J Pers Soc Psychol 88(5):736–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Madhavan P, Weigmann DA (2007) Similarities and differences between human-human and human-automation trust: An integrative review. Theor Issues in Ergonom Scie 8(4):277–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500337708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. de Visser EJ, Monfort SS, McKendrick R, Smith MAB, McKnight PE, Krueger F, Parasuraman R (2016) Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. J Exp Psychol Appl 22:331–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dietvorst BJ, Simmons JP, Massey C (2015) Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J Exp Psychol Gen 144:114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Alarcon GM, Gibson AM, Jessup SA, Capiola A (2021) Exploring the differential effects of trust violations in human-human and human-robot interactions. Appl Ergonom 93:103350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Alarcon GM, Capiola A, Lee MA, Jessup SA (2022) The effects of trustworthiness manipulations on trustworthiness perceptions and risk-taking. Decision 7(4):388–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jessup SA, Gibson AM, Capiola A, Alarcon GM, Borders M (2020) Investigating the effect of trust manipulation on affect over time in human-human versus human-robot interactions. Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Science 553–562. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2020.068

  33. Chiou E, Lee JD (2021) Trusting automation: designing for responsivity and resilience. Human Factors, Adv online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211009995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kahn PH, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Gill BT, Ruckert JH, Shen S, Gary HE, Reichert AL, Freier NG, Severson RL (2012) Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes? Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157696

  35. Lyons JB, Jessup SA, Vo T (2022) The role of decision authority and stated social intent as predictors of trust in autonomous robots. Topics in Cogn Science, Adv online public. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Alarcon GM, Lyons JB, Christensen JC, Klosterman SL, Bowers MA, Ryan TJ, Jessup SA, Wynne KT (2018) The effect of propensity to trust and perceptions of trustworthiness on trust behaviors. Behav Res Methods 50:1906–1920. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0959-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K (1995) Trust, reciprocity and social history. Games Econom Behav 10(1):122–142. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rapoport A, & Chammah AM (1965) Prisoner’s dilemma: A study in conflict and cooperation. University of Michigan Press

  39. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(6):1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1406.5823

  41. Lenth R, Singmann H, Love J, Buerkner P, Herve M (2018) Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package (version 1). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/emmeans.pdf

  42. Chen S, Chaiken S (1999) The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y (eds) Dual-process theories in social psychology. Guilford Press, pp 73–96

    Google Scholar 

  43. Moore AK, Munguia Gomez DM, Levine EE (2019) Everyday dilemmas: New directions on the judgment and resolution of benevolence–integrity dilemmas. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 13(7):e12472. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Thielmann I, Hilbig BE (2015) Trust: an integrative review from a person–situation perspective. Rev Gen Psychol 19(3):249–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Jessup SA, Willis SM, Alarcon GM (2023) Extending the affective technology acceptance model to human-robot interactions: A multi-method perspective. Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference of System Sciences (accepted for publication)

  46. Ho G, Wheatley D, Scialfa CT (2005) Age differences in trust and reliance of a medication management system. Interact Comput 17(6):690–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim PH, Ferrin DL, Cooper CD, Dirks KT (2004) Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. J Appl Psychol 89(1):104–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lewicki RJ, Brinsfield C (2017) Trust repair. Annu Rev Organ Psych Organ Behav 4:287–313. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Trafimow D, Bromgard IK, Finlay KA, Ketelaar T (2005) The role of affect in determining the attributional weight of immoral behaviors. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 31(7):935–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204272179

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Air Force Research Laboratory, United States Air Force, 2245 Monahan Way, Wright Patterson AFB, OH, 45433, USA

    Gene M. Alarcon & Joseph B. Lyons

  2. General Dynamics Information Technology, 5000 Springfield St, Dayton, OH, 45431, USA

    Izz aldin Hamdan

  3. Consortium of Universities, NW Suite 500, 1020 19Th Street, Washington, DC, 20036, USA

    Sarah A. Jessup

Authors
  1. Gene M. Alarcon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph B. Lyons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Izz aldin Hamdan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah A. Jessup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gene M. Alarcon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Statement

The study was reviewed and approved by the Air Force Institutional Review Board, which oversaw the ethical standards for treatment of human subjects.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alarcon, G.M., Lyons, J.B., Hamdan, I.a. et al. Affective Responses to Trust Violations in a Human-Autonomy Teaming Context: Humans Versus Robots. Int J of Soc Robotics 16, 23–35 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01017-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01017-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation