research-article

Modeling the Human-Robot Trust Phenomenon: A Conceptual Framework based on Risk

Authors:

Alan R. Wagner,

Paul Robinette,

Ayanna HowardAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), Volume 8, Issue 4

Article No.: 26, Pages 1 - 24

https://doi.org/10.1145/3152890

Published: 16 November 2018 Publication History

Abstract

This article presents a conceptual framework for human-robot trust which uses computational representations inspired by game theory to represent a definition of trust, derived from social psychology. This conceptual framework generates several testable hypotheses related to human-robot trust. This article examines these hypotheses and a series of experiments we have conducted which both provide support for and also conflict with our framework for trust. We also discuss the methodological challenges associated with investigating trust. The article concludes with a description of the important areas for future research on the topic of human-robot trust.

References

[1]

R. Axelrod. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York.

[2]

W. A. Bainbridge, J. W. Hart, E. S. Kim, and B. Scassellati. 2011. The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 1 (2011), 41--52.

[3]

B. Barber. 1983. The Logic and Limits of Trust. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

[4]

S. Booth, J. Tomlin, H. Pfister, J. Waldo, K. Gajos, and R. Nagpal. 2017. Piggybacking robots: Human-robot overtrust in university dormitory security. In Proceedings of IEEE 12th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’17). 426--434.

Digital Library

[5]

J. Borenstein, A. R. Wagner, and A. Howard. 2018. Overtrust of pediatric healthcare robots: A preliminary survey of parent perspectives. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 25, 1, 46--54.

[6]

R. v. Brule, D. Ron, G. Bijlstra, D. H. Wigboldus, and P. Haselager. 2014. Do robot performance and behavioral style affect human trust? International Journal of Social Robotics 6, 4 (2014), 519--531.

[7]

M. S. Carlson, M. Desai, J. L. Drury, and H. A. Yanco. 2014. Identifying factors that influence trust in automated cars and medical diagnosis systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on the Intersection of Robust Intelligence and Trust in Autonomous Systems. AAAI, Palo Alto, CA.

[8]

C. Castelfranch and R. Falcone. 2010. Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model. Wiley, New York.

Digital Library

[9]

J. L. Chang, B. B. Doll, M. van Wout, and M. J. Frank. 2010. Seeing is believing: Trustworthiness as a dynamic belief. Cognitive Psychology 61, 2, 87--105.

[10]

J. C. Cooper, T. A. Kreps, T. Wiebe, T. Pirkl, and B. Knutson. 2010. When giving is good: Ventromedial prefrontal cortex activation for others' intentions. Neuron 67, 3 (2010), 511--521.

[11]

M. Desai, P. Kaniarasu, M. Medvedev, A. Steinfeld, and H. Yanco. 2013. Impact of robot failures and feedback on real-time trust. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 251--258.

Digital Library

[12]

M. Deutsch. 1960. Trust, trustworthiness, and the F Scale. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61, 1 (1960), 138--140.

[13]

M. Deutsch. 1962. Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, 275--315.

[14]

J. E. Driskell and E. Salas. 1991. Group decision making under stress. Journal of Applied Psychology 76, 3 (1991), 473.

[15]

J. Engle-Warnick and R. L. Slonim. 2006. Learning to trust in indefinitely repeated games. Games and Economic Behavior 54, 1, 95--114.

[16]

D. Gambetta. 1990. Can we trust trust? In Trust, Making and Breaking Cooperative Relationships. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England, 213--237.

[17]

P. A. Hancock, D. R. Billings, K. E. Schaefer, J. Y. Chen, E. J. de Visser, and R. Parasuraman. 2011. A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53, 5 (2011), 517--527.

[18]

Y. C. Hung, A. R. Dennis, and L. Robert. 2004. Trust in virtual teams: Towards an integrative model of trust formation. In International Conference on System Sciences.

Digital Library

[19]

A. Josang and S. Pope. 2005. Semantic constraints for trust transitivity. In 2nd Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modeling.

Digital Library

[20]

H. H. Kelley. 1984. The theoretical description of interdependence by means of transition lists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47, 5 (1984) 956--982.

[21]

H. H. Kelly and J. W. Thibaut. 1978. Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. John Wiley 8 Sons, New York.

[22]

B. King-Casas, D. Tomlin, C. Anen, C. F. Camerer, S. R. Quartz, and P. R. Montague. 2005. Getting to know you: Reputation and trust in two-person economic exchange. Science 308, 5718, 78--83.

[23]

E. Kuligowski. 2008. Modeling Human Behavior during Building Fires. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Technical Note 1619. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

[24]

J. D. Lee and K. A. See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors 46, 1, 50--80.

[25]

D. Li, P. L. Rau, and L. Y. Patrick. 2010. A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2, 2 (2010), 175--186.

[26]

N. Luhmann. 1979. Trust and Power. Wiley, Chichester.

[27]

L. Luna-Reyes, A. M. Cresswell, and G. P. Richardson. 2004. Knowledge and the development of interpersonal trust: A dynamic model. In International Conference on System Science.

Digital Library

[28]

S. Marsh. 1994. Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Stirling.

[29]

R. C. Mayer, J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review 20, 3 (1995), 709--734.

[30]

M. J. Osborne and A. Rubinstein. 1994. A Course in Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[31]

G. Paolacci, J. Chandler, and P. G. Ipeirotis. 2010. Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5, 5 (2010), 411--419

[32]

A. Prakash and W. A. Rogers. 2015. Why some humanoid faces are perceived more positively than others: Effects of human-likeness and task. International Journal of Social Robotics 7, 2 (2015), 309--331.

[33]

M. J. Prietula and K. M. Carley. 2001. Boundedly rational and emotional agents. In Trust and Deception in Virtual Society. Kluwer Academic, 169--194.

Digital Library

[34]

J. K. Rempel, J. G. Holmes, and M. P. Zanna. 1985. Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49, 1 (1985), 95--112.

[35]

J. K. Rilling, D. A. Gutman, T. R. Zeh, G. Pagnoni, G. S. Berns, and C. D. Kilts. 2002. A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron 35, 2, 395--405.

[36]

J. K. Rilling, A. G. Sanfey, J. A. Aronson, L. E. Nystrom, and J. D. Cohen. 2004. The neural correlates of theory of mind within interpersonal interactions. NeuroImage 22, 4, 1694--1703.

[37]

R. Robinette, R. Allen, W. Li, A. Howard, and A. R. Wagner. 2016. Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios. In ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’16). 101--108.

Digital Library

[38]

P. Robinette, A. Howard, and A. R. Wagner. 2015. Timing is key for robot trust repair. In 7th International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR’15). 574--583.

[39]

P. Robinette, A. R. Wagner, and A. Howard. 2013. Building and maintaining trust between humans and guidance robots in an emergency. In Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Spring Symposium. 78--83.

[40]

R. Robinette, A. R. Wagner, and A. Howard. 2014. Modeling human-robot trust in emergencies. In Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Spring Symposium, 2014.

[41]

P. Robinette, A. R. Wagner, and A. Howard. 2016. Investigating human-robot trust in emergency scenarios: Methodological lessons learned. In The Intersection of Robust Intelligence (RI) and Trust in Autonomous Systems. Springer.

[42]

P. Robinette, A. R. Wagner, and A. M. Howard. 2017. The effect of robot performance on human-robot trust in time-critical situations. Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 47, 4, 425--436.

[43]

D. M. Rousseau, S. B. Sitkin, R. S. Burt, and C. Camerer. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 3, 393--404.

[44]

S. Russell and P. Norvig. 1995. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson.

Digital Library

[45]

M. Salem, G. Lakatos, F. Amirabdollahian, and K. Dautenhahn. 2015. Would you trust a (faulty) robot?: Effects of error, task type and personality on human-robot cooperation and trust. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 141--148.

Digital Library

[46]

M. Schillo and P. Funk. 1999. Learning from and about other agents in terms of social metaphors. In IJCAI Workshop on Agents Learning about, from and with Other Agents.

[47]

M. Schillo, P. Funk, and M. Rovatsos. 2000. Using trust for detecting deceitful agents in artificial societies. Applied Artificial Intelligence Journal, Special Issue on Trust, Deception and Fraud in Agent Societies 14, 8 (2000), 825--848.

[48]

B. R. Schlenker, B. Helm, and J. T. Tedeschi. 1973. The effects of personality and situational variables on behavioral trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 4 (1973), 419--27.

[49]

J. A. Simpson. 2007. Psychological foundations of trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16, 5 (2007), 264--268.

[50]

B. Skyrms. 2004. The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[51]

Y. Trope and N. Liberman. 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review 117, 2 (2010), 440--463.

[52]

A. R. Wagner. 2009. Creating and using matrix representations of social interaction. In Proceedings of IEEE 4th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’09). 125--132.

Digital Library

[53]

A. R. Wagner. 2009. The Role of Trust and Relationships in Human-Robot Social Interaction. Ph.D. dissertation, School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

[54]

A. R. Wagner. 2013. Developing robots that recognize when they are being trusted. In Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Spring Symposium, 84--89.

[55]

A. R. Wagner. 2015. Robots that stereotype: Creating and using categories of people for human-robot interaction. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 4, 2 (2015), 97--124.

[56]

A. R. Wagner and P. Robinette. 2015. Towards robots that trust: Human subject validation of the situational conditions for trust. Interaction Studies 16, 1 (2015), 89--117.

[57]

A. R. Wagner and R. C. Arkin. 2006. A framework for situation-based social interaction. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’11). 291--297.

[58]

A. R. Wagner and R. Arkin. 2011. Recognizing situations that demand trust. In 20th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’11). Atlanta, GA.

[59]

J. S. Winston, B. A. Strange, J. O'Doherty, and R. J. Dolan. 2002. Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nature Neuroscience. 5, 3, 277--283.

[60]

R. E. Yagoda and D. J. Gillan. 2012. You want me to trust a ROBOT? The development of a human--robot interaction trust scale. International Journal of Social Robotics 4, 3, 235--248.

[61]

T. Yamagishi. 2001. Trust as a form of social intelligence. In Trust in Society., New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

[62]

YouTube. (2016, 11/27). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLmxS71FIJc.

Cited By

Mckenna PAhmad MMaisva TNesset BLohan KHastie H(2024)A Meta-Analysis of Vulnerability and Trust in Human–Robot InteractionACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/365889713:3(1-25)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3658897
Gavidia-Calderon CKordoni ABennaceur ALevine MNuseibeh B(2024)The IDEA of Us: An Identity-Aware Architecture for Autonomous SystemsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/365443933:6(1-38)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3654439
Patibanda ROverdevest NNisal SSaini AElvitigala DKnibbe JVan Den Hoven EMueller F(2024)Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Social PlayProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3660723(2088-2106)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3660723
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Modeling the Human-Robot Trust Phenomenon: A Conceptual Framework based on Risk
1. Computer systems organization
  1. Embedded and cyber-physical systems
    1. Robotics
      1. External interfaces for robotics

Recommendations

Toward an Understanding of Trust Repair in Human-Robot Interaction: Current Research and Future Directions

Gone are the days of robots solely operating in isolation, without direct interaction with people. Rather, robots are increasingly being deployed in environments and roles that require complex social interaction with humans. The implementation of human-...
Human-Robot Trust: Just a Button Press Away
HRI '17: Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

Many of the benefits promised by human-robot interaction require successful continued interaction between a human and a robot; trust is a key component of such interaction. We investigate whether having a person "n the loop" with a robot---i.e., the ...
Measuring gains and losses in human-robot trust: evidence for differentiable components of trust
HRI '19: Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

Human-robot trust is crucial to successful human-robot interaction. We conducted a study with 798 participants distributed across 32 conditions using four dimensions of human-robot trust (reliable, capable, ethical, sincere) identified by the Multi-...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems

ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems Volume 8, Issue 4

December 2018

159 pages

ISSN:2160-6455

EISSN:2160-6463

DOI:10.1145/3292532

Editor:
Michelle X. Zhou
Juji, Inc., USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2018 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 16 November 2018

Accepted: 01 September 2018

Revised: 01 November 2017

Received: 01 December 2016

Published in TIIS Volume 8, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

40
Total Citations
View Citations
969
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)80
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8

Reflects downloads up to 10 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Mckenna PAhmad MMaisva TNesset BLohan KHastie H(2024)A Meta-Analysis of Vulnerability and Trust in Human–Robot InteractionACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/365889713:3(1-25)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3658897
Gavidia-Calderon CKordoni ABennaceur ALevine MNuseibeh B(2024)The IDEA of Us: An Identity-Aware Architecture for Autonomous SystemsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/365443933:6(1-38)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3654439
Patibanda ROverdevest NNisal SSaini AElvitigala DKnibbe JVan Den Hoven EMueller F(2024)Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Social PlayProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3660723(2088-2106)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3660723
Liu PChu YWang GXu Z(2024)To Err is Automation: Can Trust be Repaired by the Automated Driving System After its Failure?IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems10.1109/THMS.2024.343468054:5(508-519)Online publication date: Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2024.3434680
Ke CXiao FCao YHuang Z(2024)A Group-Vehicles Oriented Reputation Assessment Scheme for Edge VANETsIEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing10.1109/TCC.2024.340650912:3(859-875)Online publication date: Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCC.2024.3406509
Zhang WWong WFindlay M(2024)Trust and robotics: a multi-staged decision-making approach to robots in communityAI & Society10.1007/s00146-023-01705-139:5(2463-2478)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s00146-023-01705-1
Chernova SMynatt ERozga ASimmons RYanco H(2024)AI‐CARINGAI Magazine10.1002/aaai.1216245:1(124-130)Online publication date: 23-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/aaai.12162
Centeio Jorge CBouman NJonker CTielman M(2023)Exploring the effect of automation failure on the human’s trustworthiness in human-agent teamworkFrontiers in Robotics and AI10.3389/frobt.2023.114372310Online publication date: 23-Aug-2023
https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2023.1143723
Momen Ade Visser EFraune MMadison ARueben MCooley KTossell C(2023)Group trust dynamics during a risky driving experience in a Tesla Model XFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2023.112936914Online publication date: 20-Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1129369
Patibanda RSaini AOverdevest NMontoya MLi XChen YNisal SAndres JKnibbe Jvan den Hoven EMueller F(2023)Fused Spectatorship: Designing Bodily Experiences Where Spectators Become PlayersProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36110497:CHI PLAY(769-802)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3611049
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents