research-article

Open access

Hey?: ! What did you think about that Robot? Groups Polarize Users' Acceptance and Trust of Food Delivery Robots

Authors:

Jennifer E. Martinez,

Dawn VanLeeuwen,

Betsy Bender Stringam, and

Marlena R. FrauneAuthors Info & Claims

HRI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

March 2023

Pages 417 - 427

https://doi.org/10.1145/3568162.3576984

Published: 13 March 2023 Publication History

Abstract

As food delivery robots are spreading onto streets and college campuses worldwide, users' views of these robots will depend on their direct and indirect interactions with the robots and their conversations with other people, such as those with whom they are ordering food via a robot. We examined if being in a group of 2 to 3 people affects the acceptance and trust of the robot compared to being an individual user. First-time users of the food delivery robot service (N = 60) ordered food either as an Individual or in a Group. We measured the acceptance and trust of the robots after three Exposures (pre-exposure, after ordering food on the app, and after the robots delivered the food). Results indicated that Individual users had more acceptance and trust compared to Group users. Further, as hypothesized, groups had more variation in acceptance and trust compared to individual users, consistent with patterns of group polarization i.e., group members influencing each other's perceptions to become more positive or negative. Further analysis demonstrated that group members were highly influenced by their groupmates. Designers and restaurant operators should consider how to enhance group members' experience of delivery robots.

Supplementary Material

ZIP File (hrifp1133aux.zip)

Download
32.08 KB

References

[1]

S. Ivanov and C. Webster, "Restaurants and Robots: Public Preferences for Robot Food and Beverage Services," J. Tour. Futur., Apr. 2022.

[2]

H. Preusse, R. Skulsky, M. R. Fraune, and B. B. Stringam, "Together We can Figure It out: Groups Find Hospitality Robots Easier to Use and Interact With Them More than Individuals," Front. Robot. AI, vol. 8, p. 730399, Oct. 2021.

[3]

L. Takayama, W. Ju, and C. Nass, "Beyond Dirty, Dangerous and Dull: What Everyday People Think Robots Should Do," ACMIEEE Int. Conf. Hum.-Robot Interact. HRI, p. 8, Mar. 2008.

Digital Library

[4]

I. Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, ?. Çi?dem, B. Y?ld?z, and S. Davidavicius, "The Effect of Perceptions on Service Robot Usage Intention: A Survey Study in the Service Sector," Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 17, Art. no. 17, Aug. 2021.

[5]

V. W. S. Tung and N. Au, "Exploring Customer Experiences with Robotics in Hospitality," Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag., vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 2680--2697, Sep. 2018.

[6]

S. Kim and H. Kim, "Moderating Effects of Tourists' Novelty-Seeking Tendencies on the Relationship Between Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention," Tour. Anal., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 511--522, Nov. 2015.

[7]

O. El-Said and S. Al Hajri, "Are Customers Happy with Robot Service? Investigating Satisfaction with Robot Service Restaurants during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 3, p. e08986, Mar. 2022.

[8]

V. N. Lu et al., "Service Robots, Customers and Service Employees: What Can We Learn from the Academic Literature and Where Are the Gaps?," J. Serv. Theory Pract., vol. 30, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Apr. 2020.

[9]

N. Ellemers, S. Pagliaro, and M. Barreto, ?Morality and Behavioral Regulation in Groups: A Social Identity Approach," Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 160--193, Dec. 2013.

[10]

R. L. Goldstone, T. N. Wisdom, M. E. Roberts, and S. Frey, "Learning Along With Others," in Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 58, Elsevier, 2013, pp. 1--45.

[11]

J. Xu and E. Montague, "An Experimental Study on Individual and Group Affect in Multitasking Teams," Ergonomics, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 376--390, Mar. 2019.

[12]

J. Stoner, "Risky and Cautious Shifts in Group Decisions: The Influence of Widely Held Values," p. 86, 1968.

[13]

J. Xu and E. Montague, "Group Polarization of Trust in Technology," Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet., vol. 57, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Sep. 2013.

[14]

H. Gençer, "Group Dynamics and Behaviour," Univers. J. Educ. Res., vol. 7, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Jan. 2019.

[15]

R. McGlynn, D. Harding, and J. Cottle, ?Individual--Group Discontinuity in Group--Individual Interactions: Does Size Matter," Group Process. Intergroup Relat., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 129--143, 2009.

[16]

R. Johnson and L. Downing, "Deindividuation and Valence of Cues Effects on Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior," J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1532--1538, 1979.

[17]

S. D. Reicher, R. Spears, and T. Postmes, "A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena," Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 161--198, Jan. 1995.

[18]

D. Capbell, "Common Fate, Similarity, and Other Indices of the Status of Aggregates of Persons as Social Entities.," Behav. Sci. vol. 3, no. 1, pp 14, 1958.

[19]

A. M. H. Abrams and A. M. R. der Pütten, "I--C--E Framework: Concepts for Group Dynamics Research in Human-Robot Interaction: Revisiting Theory from Social Psychology on Ingroup Identification (I), Cohesion (C) and Entitativity (E)," Int. J. Soc. Robot., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1213--1229, Dec. 2020.

[20]

C. Insko, "Individual-Group Discontinuity: The Role of a Consensus Rule," J. Exp. Psychol., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 505--519, 1988.

[21]

C. A. Insko, T. Wildschut, and T. R. Cohen, "Interindividual--Intergroup Discontinuity in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game: How Common Fate, Proximity, and Similarity Affect Intergroup Competition," Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., vol. 120, no. 2, pp. 168--180, Mar. 2013.

[22]

S. Sebo, B. Stoll, B. Scassellati, and M. F. Jung, "Robots in Groups and Teams: A Literature Review," Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., vol. 4, no. CSCW2, Art. no. CSCW2, Oct. 2020.

Digital Library

[23]

A. Bera, T. Randhavane, E. Kubin, A. Wang, K. Gray, and D. Manocha, "The Socially Invisible Robot Navigation in the Social World Using Robot Entitativity," in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Madrid, Oct. 2018, pp. 4468--4475.

Digital Library

[24]

M. R. Fraune, Y. Nishiwaki, S. Sabanovi?, E. R. Smith, and M. Okada, "Threatening Flocks and Mindful Snowflakes: How Group Entitativity Affects Perceptions of Robots," in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Vienna Austria, Mar. 2017, pp. 205--213.

Digital Library

[25]

A. I. Nawroj, M. Toneva, H. Admoni, and B. Scassellati, ?An Exploration of Social Grouping in Robots: Effects of Behavioral Mimicry, Appearance, and Eye Gaze," Proc. Annu. Meet. Cogn. Sci. Soc., p. 7, 2014.

[26]

H. Admoni, B. Hayes, D. Feil-Seifer, D. Ullman, and B. Scassellati, "Dancing With Myself: The effect of majority group size on perceptions of majority and minority robot group members," Conf. Proc. Annu. Meet. Cogn. Sci. Soc., p. 7, 2013.

[27]

M. Fraune, S. Kawakami, S. Sabanovic, R. de Silva, and M. Okada, "Three's Company, or a Crowd?: The Effects of Robot Number and Behavior on HRI in Japan and the USA," in Robotics: Science and Systems XI, Jul. 2015.

[28]

F. Correia, S. Mascarenhas, R. Prada, F. S. Melo, and A. Paiva, ?Group-based Emotions in Teams of Humans and Robots," in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Chicago IL USA, Feb. 2018, pp. 261--269.

Digital Library

[29]

T. Kanda, T. Hirano, and D. Eaton, ?Interactive Robots as Social Partners and Peer Tutors for Children: A Field Trial," Hum.-Comput. Interact., vol. 19, pp. 61--84, 2004.

Digital Library

[30]

S. Sabanovic, M. P. Michalowski, and R. Simmons, "Robots in the Wild: Observing Human-Robot Social Interaction outside the Lab," in 9th IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, 2006., Istanbul, Turkey, 2006, pp. 596--601.

[31]

M. R. Fraune, S. ?abanovi?, and T. Kanda, "Human Group Presence, Group Characteristics, and Group Norms Affect Human-Robot Interaction in Naturalistic Settings," Front. Robot. AI, vol. 6, p. 48, Jun. 2019.

[32]

M. R. Fraune, S. Sherrin, S. Sabanovic, and E. R. Smith, "Is Human-Robot Interaction More Competitive Between Groups Than Between Individuals?," in 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, Korea (South), Mar. 2019, pp. 104--113.

[33]

W.-L. Chang, J. P. White, J. Park, A. Holm, and S. Sabanovic, "The Effect of Group Size on People's Attitudes and Cooperative Behaviors toward Robots in Interactive Gameplay," in 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Paris, France, Sep. 2012, pp. 845--850.

[34]

C. Wilson, D. Langlois, and M. R. Fraune, ?Strangers on a Team?: How Strangers Versus Non-Strangers Rate Robot Performance in a Team-Based Estimation Game," Under review.

[35]

D. J. Isenberg, "Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis," J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1141--1151, 1986.

[36]

I. R. Andrews and D. L. Johnson, "Small-G usage in the car roup Polarization of Judgments," Psychon. Sci., vol. 24, no. 4, Art. no. 4, Apr. 1971.

[37]

D. G. Myers and H. Lamm, "The Group Polarization Phenomenon," Psychol. Bull., p. 26, 1976.

[38]

M. R. Fraune, S. Sabanovic, and T. Kanda, "Dynamics and Characteristics of Groups affects Human-Robot Interaction," Trans. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 2019.

[39]

T. Kanda, R. Sato, N. Saiwaki, and H. Ishiguro, "A Two-Month Field Trial in an Elementary School for Long-Term Human--Robot Interaction," IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 962--971, Oct. 2007.

Digital Library

[40]

C. Bröhl, J. Nelles, C. Brandl, A. Mertens, and C. M. Schlick, "TAM Reloaded: A Technology Acceptance Model for Human-Robot Cooperation in Production Systems," in HCI International 2016 -- Posters' Extended Abstracts, vol. 617, C. Stephanidis, Ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 97--103.

[41]

S. Osswald, D. Wurhofer, and S. Tr, "Predicting Information Technology Usage in the Car: Towards a Car Technology Acceptance Model," AutomotiveUI 12 Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Automot. User Interfaces Interact. Veh. Appl., p. 8, 2012.

Digital Library

[42]

C. Esterwood, K. Essenmacher, H. Yang, F. Zeng, and L. P. Robert, "A Personable Robot: Meta-Analysis of Robot Personality and Human Acceptance," IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett., vol. 7, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Jul. 2022.

[43]

S. Naneva, M. Sarda Gou, T. L. Webb, and T. J. Prescott, "A Systematic Review of Attitudes, Anxiety, Acceptance, and Trust Towards Social Robots," Int. J. Soc. Robot., vol. 12, no. 6, Art. no. 6, Dec. 2020.

[44]

M. Law et al., "Case Studies on the Usability, Acceptability and Functionality of Autonomous Mobile Delivery Robots in Real-World Healthcare Settings," Intell. Serv. Robot., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 387--398, Jul. 2021.

Digital Library

[45]

L. Fuentes-Moraleda, P. Díaz-Pérez, A. Orea-Giner, A. Muñoz- Mazón, and T. Villacé-Molinero, "Interaction Between Hotel Service Robots and Humans: A Hotel Specific Service Robot Acceptance Model (sRAM)," Tour. Manag. Perspect., vol. 36, p. 100751, Oct. 2020.

[46]

D. A. Adams, R. R. Nelson, and P. A. Todd, "Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication," MIS Q., vol. 16, no. 2, p. 227, Jun. 1992.

Digital Library

[47]

K. H. Seo and J. H. Lee, "The Emergence of Service Robots at Restaurants: Integrating Trust, Perceived Risk, and Satisfaction," Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 8, Art. no. 8, Apr. 2021.

[48]

R. de Kervenoael, R. Hasan, A. Schwob, and E. Goh, "Leveraging Human Robot Interaction in Hospitality Services: Incorporating the Role of Perceived Value, Empathy, and Information Sharing into Visitors' Intentions to Use Social Robots," Tour. Manag., vol. 78, p. 104042, Jun. 2020.

[49]

S. Daronnat, L. Azzopardi, M. Halvey, and M. Dubiel, "Inferring Trust From Users' Behaviours; Agents' Predictability Positively Affects Trust, Task Performance and Cognitive Load in Human-Agent Real-Time Collaboration," Front. Robot. AI, vol. 8, p. 642201, Jul. 2021.

[50]

S. C. Kohn, E. J. de Visser, E. Wiese, Y.-C. Lee, and T. H. Shaw, "Measurement of Trust in Automation: A Narrative Review and Reference Guide," Front. Psychol., vol. 12, p. 604977, Oct. 2021.

[51]

K. Drnec, A. R. Marathe, J. R. Lukos, and J. S. Metcalfe, "From Trust in Automation to Decision Neuroscience: Applying Cognitive Neuroscience Methods to Understand and Improve Interaction Decisions Involved in Human Automation Interaction," Front. Hum. Neurosci., vol. 10, Jun. 2016.

[52]

B. F. Malle and D. Ullman, "A Multidimensional Conception and Measure of Human Robot Trust," in Trust in Human-Robot Interaction, Elsevier, 2021, pp. 3--25.

[53]

D. Ullman and B. F. Malle, "Measuring Gains and Losses in Human-Robot Trust: Evidence for Differentiable Components of Trust," in 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, Korea (South), Mar. 2019, pp. 618--619.

[54]

P. Madhavan, D. Wiegmann, and F. Lacson, "Automation Failures on Tasks Easily Performed by Operators Undermine Trust in Automated Aids," Hum. Factors, vol. 48, no. 2, p. 241, 2006.

[55]

N. Calvo-Barajas and G. Castellano, "Understanding Children's Trust Development through Repeated Interactions with a Virtual Social Robot," 2022 31st IEEE Int. Conf. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun. RO-MAN, pp. 1451--1458, 2022.

[56]

J. Xu, K. Le, A. Deitermann, and E. Montague, "How Different Types of Users Develop Trust in Technology: A Qualitative Analysis of the Antecedents of Active and Passive User Trust in a Shared Technology," Appl. Ergon., vol. 45, no. 6, Art. no. 6, Nov. 2014.

[57]

R. M. Montoya, R. S. Horton, J. L. Vevea, M. Citkowicz, and E. A. Lauber, "A Re-Examination of the Mere Exposure Effect: The Influence of Repeated Exposure on Recognition, Familiarity, and Liking.," Psychol. Bull., vol. 143, no. 5, pp. 459--498, 2017.

[58]

J. Hansen and M. Wänke, "Liking What's Familiar: The Importance of Unconscious Familiarity in the Mere-Exposure Effect," Soc. Cogn., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 161--182, 2009.

[59]

M.-Y. Wang and H.-C. Chang, "The Mere Exposure Effect and Recognition Memory," Cogn. Emot., vol. 18, no. 8, Art. no. 8, Dec. 2004.

[60]

R. B. Zajonc, "Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.," J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 9, no. 2, Pt.2, pp. 1--27, 1968.

[61]

A. Y. Lee, "The Mere Exposure Effect: An Uncertainty Reduction Explanation Revisited," Soc. Personal. Soc. Psychol., vol. 27, no. 10, p. 12, 2001.

[62]

C. V. Smedegaard, "Novelty Knows No Boundaries: Why a Proper Investigation of Novelty Effects Within SHRI Should Begin by Addressing the Scientific Plurality of the Field," Front. Robot. AI, vol. 9, p. 741478, May 2022.

[63]

O. H. Chi, S. Jia, Y. Li, and D. Gursoy, "Developing a Formative Scale to Measure Consumers' Trust toward Interaction with Artificially Intelligent (AI) Social Robots in Service Delivery," Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 118, p. 106700, May 2021.

[64]

A. Kim, J. Han, Y. Jung, and K. Lee, "The Effects of Familiarity and Robot gesture on user acceptance of information," in 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Tokyo, Japan, Mar. 2013, pp. 159--160.

[65]

R. Baddoura, G. Venture, and R. Matsukata, "The Familiar as a Key Concept in Regulating the Social and Affective Dimensions of HRI," in 2012 12th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids 2012), Osaka, Japan, Nov. 2012, pp. 234--241.

[66]

P. Hekkert, C. Thurgood, and T. W. A. Whitfield, "The Mere Exposure Effect for Consumer Products as a Consequence of Existing Familiarity and Controlled Exposure," Acta Psychol. (Amst.), vol. 144, no. 2, Art. no. 2, Oct. 2013.

[67]

B. Duff and R. Faber, "Missing the Mark," J. Advert., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 51--62, 2011.

[68]

S. Sutherland, M. Gabbott, and K. Jackson, "A Preliminary Study Investigating the Mere Exposure Effect Using Divided and Full Attention Conditions," Australas. Mark. J., vol. 7, no. 2, Art. no. 2, Dec. 1999.

[69]

E. J. Halcomb and L. Hickman, "Mixed methods research," Nurs. Stand., p. 19, 2015.

[70]

S. Y. Park, M.-W. Nam, and S.-B. Cha, "University Students' Behavioral Intention to Use Mobile Learning: Evaluating the Technology Acceptance Model: Factors Related to Use Mobile Learning," Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 43, no. 4, Art. no. 4, Jul. 2012.

[71]

J. D. Brown, "What issues affect Likert-scale questionnaire formats"," p. 4, 2000.

[72]

U. Sekaran, Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach 4th. Wiley, 2002.

[73]

J. Singer, ?Using SAS PROC MIXED to Fit Multilevel Models," J. Educ. Behav. Stat., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 323--355, 1998.

[74]

M. C. Schippers and D. C. Rus, "Majority Decision-Making Works Best Under Conditions of Leadership Ambiguity and Shared Task Representations," Front. Psychol., vol. 12, p. 519295, Jun. 2021.

[75]

R. Mehta, B. Chauhan, M. Edwards, T. Rosser, V. Dunbar, and S. Rice, "Does a SWT Reverse Contagion Effect Exist from Humans to Automation?," Coll. Aviat. Rev. Int., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 90--106, Apr. 2019.

[76]

J. Faber and L. M. Fonseca, "How Sample Size Influences Research Outcomes," Dent. Press J. Orthod., vol. 19, no. 4, Art. no. 4, Aug. 2014.

[77]

Otto and Longnecker, Intro to Statistical Methods & Data Analysis, 7th ed. 2016.

[78]

F. Eyssel and F. Hegel, "(S)he's Got the Look: Gender Stereotyping of Robots 1," J. Appl. Soc. Psychol., vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 2213--2230, 2012.

[79]

Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R., and Reece, J. "Consumer Research in the Restaurant Environment Part 1: A Conceptual Model of Dining Satisfaction and Return Patronage." International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol.11, no.5, pp. 205--222. 1999

[80]

Namkung, Y., Jang, S., "Does Food Quality Really Matter in Restaurant: Its Impact of Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions?" Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol.31, No.3, pp. 387--410. 2007

[81]

Rajpoot, N. A. "TANGSERV: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Tangible Quality in Food Service Industry." Journal of Foodservice Business Research, vol.5, no.2, pp.109--127. 2002.

Cited By

Wilson CLanglois DFraune M(2024)Strangers on a Team?: Human Companions, Compared to Strangers or Individuals, are More Likely to Reject a Robot TeammateInternational Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-024-01133-116:4(699-709)Online publication date: 10-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01133-1
Esmaeilian BBehdad S(2024)Integration of Blockchain with Last Mile Delivery Robots Toward Marketing InnovationsDecentralized Finance10.1007/978-3-031-49515-1_9(151-173)Online publication date: 16-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49515-1_9
Schött SCapsi-Morales PVilla SButz APiazza C(2023)Would You Hold My Hand? Exploring External Observers’ Perception of Artificial HandsMultimodal Technologies and Interaction10.3390/mti70700717:7(71)Online publication date: 17-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti7070071
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Hey?: ! What did you think about that Robot? Groups Polarize Users' Acceptance and Trust of Food Delivery Robots
1. Computer systems organization
  1. Embedded and cyber-physical systems
    1. Robotics
      1. Robotic autonomy
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
  2. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. Interaction paradigms
      1. Collaborative interaction

Recommendations

Insights into user experiences and acceptance of mobile indoor navigation devices
MUM '12: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia

Location-based services, which can be applied in navigation systems, are a key application in mobile and ubiquitous computing. Combined with indoor localization techniques, pico projectors can be used for navigation purposes to augment the environment ...
Read More
Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model

This paper examines cognitive beliefs and affect influencing one's intention to continue using (continuance) information systems (IS). Expectation-confirmation theory is adapted from the consumer behavior literature and integrated with theoretical and ...
Read More
A study on the acceptance of internet banking
ICETC '18: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers

Internet banking expected to ease commercial transactions and uplift satisfactory services. Studies affirmed internet banking in Nigeria is low compared with other e-banking systems. This study analyzed mediation role of trust in technology, theory of ...
Read More

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

HRI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

March 2023

631 pages

ISBN:9781450399647

DOI:10.1145/3568162

General Chairs:
Ginevra Castellano
Uppsala University, Sweden
,
Laurel Riek
University of California San Diego, USA
,
Program Chairs:
Maya Cakmak
University of Washington, USA
,
Iolanda Leite
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

Copyright © 2023 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 ACM 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]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 13 March 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

NSF IIS

Conference

HRI '23

Sponsor:

HRI '23: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

March 13 - 16, 2023

Stockholm, Sweden

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
758
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)592
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)40

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Wilson CLanglois DFraune M(2024)Strangers on a Team?: Human Companions, Compared to Strangers or Individuals, are More Likely to Reject a Robot TeammateInternational Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-024-01133-116:4(699-709)Online publication date: 10-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01133-1
Esmaeilian BBehdad S(2024)Integration of Blockchain with Last Mile Delivery Robots Toward Marketing InnovationsDecentralized Finance10.1007/978-3-031-49515-1_9(151-173)Online publication date: 16-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49515-1_9
Schött SCapsi-Morales PVilla SButz APiazza C(2023)Would You Hold My Hand? Exploring External Observers’ Perception of Artificial HandsMultimodal Technologies and Interaction10.3390/mti70700717:7(71)Online publication date: 17-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti7070071
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

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

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 Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents