skip to main content
10.1145/3686038.3686061acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagestasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Trust Transfer in Robots between Task Environments

Published: 16 September 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Trust and capability transfer between tasks and environments is common in human-human interactions. For human-robot interactions it is unclear how a robot’s performance of a task in one environment affects humans predictions about the robot’s performance of another related or unrelated task in a different environment. When making assessments about a robot’s task capabilities, three main sources of information are pertinent: the human’s “default mental model” of robots, the robot’s appearance, and the robot’s performance. We hypothesized that past task performance would be the most salient information source, and that participants who saw the robot perform tasks in one environment would transfer their assumptions about the robot’s capability to a new environment with new tasks. However, the results of our first study did not support this hypothesis. We then performed a second study to exclude the possibility that because the robot worked well in the first environment, it did not supply any salient, different information from the participants’ default mental model of robots (that robots are functional, etc.). If this hypothesis was correct, a faulty robot in the first environment would be rated significantly lower at the tasks in the second environment. However, the results did not support the second hypothesis either. We then conducted a third study investigating whether the tasks themselves or the environment had a stronger effect on trust assessments. The results showed that because individual judgments varied dramatically no systematic trust and task transfer result can be obtained. The upshot for HRI is that trust and task transfer are solely dependent on the individual’s background and judgment rather than on task or environmental properties.

References

[1]
Abdulaziz Abubshait and Eva Wiese. 2017. You look human, but act like a machine: agent appearance and behavior modulate different aspects of human–robot interaction. Frontiers in psychology 8 (2017), 1393.
[2]
Rowel Atienza and Alexander Zelinsky. 2002. Active gaze tracking for human-robot interaction. In Proceedings. Fourth IEEE International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces. IEEE, 261–266.
[3]
Meia Chita-Tegmark, Janet M Ackerman, Matthias Scheutz, 2019. Effects of assistive robot behavior on impressions of patient psychological attributes: Vignette-based human-robot interaction study. Journal of medical Internet research 21, 6 (2019), e13729.
[4]
Anders BH Christensen, Christian R Dam, Corentin Rasle, Jacob E Bauer, Ramlo A Mohamed, and Lars Christian Jensen. 2019. Reducing overtrust in failing robotic systems. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 542–543.
[5]
Daniel P Davison, Frances M Wijnen, Vicky Charisi, Jan van der Meij, Vanessa Evers, and Dennis Reidsma. 2020. Working with a social robot in school: a long-term real-world unsupervised deployment. In 2020 15th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 63–72.
[6]
Munjal Desai, Mikhail Medvedev, Marynel Vázquez, Sean McSheehy, Sofia Gadea-Omelchenko, Christian Bruggeman, Aaron Steinfeld, and Holly Yanco. 2012. Effects of changing reliability on trust of robot systems. In 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 73–80.
[7]
Angeliki Dimitrokalli, George-Christopher Vosniakos, Dimitris Nathanael, and Elias Matsas. 2020. On the assessment of human-robot collaboration in mechanical product assembly by use of Virtual Reality. Procedia Manufacturing 51 (2020), 627–634.
[8]
Chad Edwards, Autumn Edwards, Patric R Spence, and David Westerman. 2016. Initial interaction expectations with robots: Testing the human-to-human interaction script. Communication Studies 67, 2 (2016), 227–238.
[9]
Denise Y Geiskkovitch, Raquel Thiessen, James E Young, and Melanie R Glenwright. 2019. What? That’s Not a Chair!: How Robot Informational Errors Affect Children’s Trust Towards Robots. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 48–56.
[10]
Jennifer Goetz, Sara Kiesler, and Aaron Powers. 2003. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003. Ieee, 55–60.
[11]
PA Hancock, Theresa T Kessler, Alexandra D Kaplan, John C Brill, and James L Szalma. 2020. Evolving trust in robots: specification through sequential and comparative meta-analyses. Human factors (2020), 0018720820922080.
[12]
Peter A Hancock, Deborah R Billings, Kristin E Schaefer, Jessie YC Chen, Ewart J De Visser, and Raja Parasuraman. 2011. A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human factors 53, 5 (2011), 517–527.
[13]
Kerstin Sophie Haring, David Silvera-Tawil, Katsumi Watanabe, and Mari Velonaki. 2016. The influence of robot appearance and interactive ability in HRI: a cross-cultural study. In International conference on social robotics. Springer, 392–401.
[14]
Kerstin S Kerstin S Haring, Katsumi Watanabe, Mari Velonaki, Chad C Tossell, and Victor Finomore. 2018. FFAB—The form function attribution bias in human–robot interaction. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems 10, 4 (2018), 843–851.
[15]
Matthias Kraus, Johannes Kraus, Martin Baumann, and Wolfgang Minker. 2018. Effects of gender stereotypes on trust and likability in spoken human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2018).
[16]
Minae Kwon, Malte F Jung, and Ross A Knepper. 2016. Human expectations of social robots. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 463–464.
[17]
Theresa Law, Meia Chita-Tegmark, and Matthias Scheutz. 2021. The Interplay Between Emotional Intelligence, Trust, and Gender in Human-Robot Interaction.Int. J. Soc. Robotics 13, 2 (2021), 297–309.
[18]
Theresa Law, Josh de Leeuw, and John H Long. 2020. How Movements of a Non-Humanoid Robot Affect Emotional Perceptions and Trust. International Journal of Social Robotics (2020), 1–12.
[19]
Theresa Law, Bertram F Malle, and Matthias Scheutz. 2021. A touching connection: how observing robotic touch can affect human trust in a robot. International Journal of Social Robotics 13, 8 (2021), 2003–2019.
[20]
Theresa Law and Matthias Scheutz. 2021. Trust: Recent concepts and evaluations in human-robot interaction. Trust in human-robot interaction (2021), 27–57.
[21]
Sau-lai Lee, Ivy Yee-man Lau, Sara Kiesler, and Chi-Yue Chiu. 2005. Human mental models of humanoid robots. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 2767–2772.
[22]
Paul Robinette, Wenchen Li, Robert Allen, Ayanna M Howard, and Alan R Wagner. 2016. Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 101–108.
[23]
Alessandra Rossi, Patrick Holthaus, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Kheng Lee Koay, and Michael L Walters. 2018. Getting to know Pepper: Effects of people’s awareness of a robot’s capabilities on their trust in the robot. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human-agent interaction. 246–252.
[24]
Selma Sabanovic, Marek P Michalowski, and Reid Simmons. 2006. Robots in the wild: Observing human-robot social interaction outside the lab. In 9th IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, 2006. IEEE, 596–601.
[25]
Maha Salem, Gabriella Lakatos, Farshid Amirabdollahian, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2015. Would you trust a (faulty) robot? Effects of error, task type and personality on human-robot cooperation and trust. In 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 1–8.
[26]
Tracy Sanders, Alexandra Kaplan, Ryan Koch, Michael Schwartz, and Peter A Hancock. 2019. The relationship between trust and use choice in human-robot interaction. Human factors 61, 4 (2019), 614–626.
[27]
Sarah Strohkorb Sebo, Priyanka Krishnamurthi, and Brian Scassellati. 2019. “I Don’t Believe You”: Investigating the Effects of Robot Trust Violation and Repair. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 57–65.
[28]
Harold Soh, Pan Shu, Min Chen, and David Hsu. 2018. The Transfer of Human Trust in Robot Capabilities across Tasks. In Robotics: Science and Systems.
[29]
Harold Soh, Pan Shu, Min Chen, and David Hsu. 2019. Trust Dynamics and Transfer across Human-Robot Interaction Tasks: Bayesian and Neural Computational Models. In IJCAI. 6226–6230.
[30]
Harold Soh, Yaqi Xie, Min Chen, and David Hsu. 2020. Multi-task trust transfer for human–robot interaction. The International Journal of Robotics Research 39, 2-3 (2020), 233–249.
[31]
Patric R Spence, David Westerman, Chad Edwards, and Autumn Edwards. 2014. Welcoming our robot overlords: Initial expectations about interaction with a robot. Communication Research Reports 31, 3 (2014), 272–280.
[32]
Daniel Ullman and Bertram F Malle. 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. 263–264.
[33]
Vincent Weistroffer, Alexis Paljic, Lucile Callebert, and Philippe Fuchs. 2013. A methodology to assess the acceptability of human-robot collaboration using virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. 39–48.
[34]
Sangseok You and Lionel P Robert. 2018. Human–robot similarity and willingness to work with a robotic co-worker. In 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 251–260.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
TAS '24: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems
September 2024
335 pages
ISBN:9798400709890
DOI:10.1145/3686038
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 16 September 2024

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Human-robot interaction
  2. human-robot team
  3. task similarity
  4. trust
  5. trust transfer

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

TAS '24

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 136
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)136
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)26
Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media