Objective: We evaluate and quantify the effects of human, robot, and environmental factors on perceived trust in human-robot interaction (HRI).
Background: To date, reviews of trust in HRI have been qualitative or descriptive. Our quantitative review provides a fundamental empirical foundation to advance both theory and practice.
Method: Meta-analytic methods were applied to the available literature on trust and HRI. A total of 29 empirical studies were collected, of which 10 met the selection criteria for correlational analysis and 11 for experimental analysis. These studies provided 69 correlational and 47 experimental effect sizes.
Results: The overall correlational effect size for trust was r̄ = +0.26, with an experimental effect size of d̄ = +0.71. The effects of human, robot, and environmental characteristics were examined with an especial evaluation of the robot dimensions of performance and attribute-based factors. The robot performance and attributes were the largest contributors to the development of trust in HRI. Environmental factors played only a moderate role.
Conclusion: Factors related to the robot itself, specifically, its performance, had the greatest current association with trust, and environmental factors were moderately associated. There was little evidence for effects of human-related factors.
Application: The findings provide quantitative estimates of human, robot, and environmental factors influencing HRI trust. Specifically, the current summary provides effect size estimates that are useful in establishing design and training guidelines with reference to robot-related factors of HRI trust. Furthermore, results indicate that improper trust calibration may be mitigated by the manipulation of robot design. However, many future research needs are identified.
AdamsB. D.BruynL. E.HoudeS.AngelopoulosP. (2003). Trust in automated systems literature review (DRDC Toronto No. CR-2003-096). Toronto, Canada: Defence Research and Development Canada.
2.
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
*BainbridgeW. A.HartJ.KimE. S.ScassellatiB. (2008). The effect of presence on human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Community (pp. 701–706). Munich, Germany: IEEE.
4.
*BirosD. P.DalyM.GunschG. (2004). The influence of task load and automation trust on deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 173–189.
5.
ChangL. J.DollB. B.van ’t WoutM.FrankM. J.SanfeyA. G. (2010). Seeing is believing: Trustworthiness as a dynamic belief. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 87–105.
6.
ChenJ. Y. C.BarnesM. J.Harper-SciariniM. (2010). Supervisory control of multiple robots: Human-performance issues and user-interface design. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part C: Applications and Reviews, 41, 435–454.
7.
ChenJ. Y. C.HaasE. C.BarnesM. J. (2007). Human performance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part C: Applications and Reviews, 37, 1231–1245.
8.
ChenJ. Y. C.TerrenceP. I. (2009). Effects of imperfect automation and individual differences on concurrent performance of military and robotics tasks in a simulated multitasking environment. Ergonomics, 52, 907–920.
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
*De RuyterB.SainiP.MarkopoulousP.van BreemanA. (2005). Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in robotic interface in the home. Interacting With Computers, 17, 522–541.
11.
de VisserE. J.ParasuramanR.FreedyA.FreedyE.WeltmanG. (2006). A comprehensive methodology for assessing human-robot team performance for use in training and simulation. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 2639–2643). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
12.
DzindoletM. T.PetersonS. A.PomrankyR. A.PierceL. G.BeckH. P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 697–718.
13.
EpleyN.WaytzA.CacioppoJ. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114, 864–886.
14.
*EversV.MaldanadoH.BrodeckiT.HindsP. (2008). Relational vs. group self-construal: Untangling the role of national culture in HRI. In Proceedings in the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 255–262). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
15.
FreedyA.de VisserE.WeltmanG.CoeymanN. (2007). Measurement of trust in human-robot collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Collaborative Technologies and Systems (pp. 106–114). Orlando, FL: IEEE.
16.
GarreauJ. (2007, May6). Bots on the ground: In the field of battle (or even above it), robots are a soldier’s best friend. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com
GoodrichM. A.CrandallJ. W.StimpsonJ. (2003, March). Neglect tolerant teaming: Issues and dilemmas. Paper presented at the 2003 AAAI Spring Symposium on Human Interaction with Autonomous Systems in Complex Environments, Palo Alto, CA.
19.
GrafB.HansM.SchraftR. D. (2004). Care-O-Bot II development of a next generation robotic home assistant. Autonomous Robots, 16, 193–205.
20.
GroomV.NassC. (2007). Can robots be teammates? Benchmarks in human-robot teams. Interaction Studies, 8, 483–500.
21.
GuizzoE.GoldsteinH. (2005). The rise of the body bots [robotic exoskeletons]. IEEE Spectrum, 42(10), 50–56.
22.
HancockP. A. (1996). Effects of control order, augmented feedback, input device and practice on tracking performance and perceived workload. Ergonomics, 39, 1146–1162.
23.
HancockP. A.HancockG. M.WarmJ. S. (2009). Individuation: The N = 1 revolution. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 10, 481–488.
24.
HancockP. A.WarmJ. S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31, 519–537.
25.
HedgesL.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
26.
*HeerinkM.KroseB.EversV.WielingaB. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The Almere model. International Journal of Social Robots, 2, 361–375.
27.
HindsP. J.RobertsT. L.JonesH. (2004). Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 151–181.
28.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
KeriS.KissI.KelemenO. (2009). Sharing secrets: Oxytocin and trust in schizophrenia. Social Neuroscience, 4, 287–293.
30.
KeyesB.MicireM.DruryJ. L.YancoH. A. (2010). Improving human-robot interaction through interface evolution. In ChugoD. (Ed.), Human-robot interaction (pp. 183-202). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
31.
*KiddC. D. (2003). Sociable robots: The role of presence and task in human-robot interaction. (Master’s thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
32.
*KiddC. D.BreazealC. (2004). Effect of a robot on user perception. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 3559–3564). Sendai, Japan: IEEE.
33.
*KieslerS.PowersA.FussellS. R.TorryC. (2008). Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agents. Social Cognition, 26, 169–181.
34.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.
35.
*LiD.RauP.LiY. (2010). A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robots, 2, 175–186.
36.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
*LooijeR.NeerinexM. A.CnossenF. (2010). Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: Design and evaluation of social behaviors. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 386–397.
38.
MadhavanP.WiegmannD. A. (2007). Similarities and differences between human-human and human-automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 277–301.
39.
MoravecH. (1988). Mind children: The future of robot and human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
MorrisS. B.DeShonR. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105–125.
41.
MurphyR. R.RiddleD.RasmussenE. (2004). Robot-assisted medical reachback: A survey of how medical personnel expect to interact with rescue robots. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2004), (pp. 301–306). Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan: IEEE.
42.
*MutluB.YamaokaF.KandaT.IshiguroH.HagitaN. (2009). Nonverbal leakage in robots: Communication of intentions through seemingly unintentional behavior. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 69–76). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
43.
NatsoulasT. (1967). What are perceptual reports about?Psychological Bulletin, 67, 249–272.
44.
OgretenS.LackeyS.NicholsonD. (2010, May). Recommended roles for uninhabited team members within mixed-initiative combat teams. Paper presented at the 2010 International Symposium on Collaborative Technology Systems, Chicago, IL.
45.
ParasuramanR.CosenzoK. A.de VisserE. (2009). Adaptive automation for human supervision of multiple uninhabited vehicles: Effects on change detection, situation awareness, and mental workload. Military Psychology, 21, 270–297.
46.
ParasuramanR.ManzeyD. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52, 381–410.
47.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
48.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT.WickensC. (2008). Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2, 140–160.
49.
ParkE.JenkinsQ.JiangX. (2008 September). Measuring trust of human operators in new generation rescue robots. Paper presented at the 7th JFPS International Symposium on Fluid Power, Toyama, Japan.
50.
*PowersA.KieslerS.FussellS.TorreyC. (2007). Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 145–152). Arlington, VA: ACM.
51.
*RauP. L.LiY.LiD. (2009). Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 587–595.
52.
*RossJ. M. (2008). Moderators of trust and reliance across multiple decision aids (Doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando.
53.
*ScopellitiM.GiulianiM. V.FornaraF. (2005). Robots in a domestic setting: A psychological approach. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4, 146–155.
54.
SheridanT. B. (2002). Humans and automation: System design and research issues. Santa Monica, CA: Wiley.
55.
SheridanT. B.ParasuramanR. (2006). Human-automation interaction. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 1, 89–129.
56.
SteinfeldA.FongT.KaberD.LewisM.ScholtzJ.SchultzA.GoodrichM. (2006). Common metrics for human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of 2006 ACM Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, (pp. 33–40). Salt Lake City, UT: ACM.
57.
*TenneyY. J.RogersW. H.PewR. W. (1998). Pilot opinions of cockpit automation issues. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 103–120.
58.
*TsuiK. M.DesaiM.YancoH. A. (2010). Considering the bystander’s perspective for indirect human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 129–130). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
59.
TsuiK. M.YancoH. A. (2007). Assistive, surgical, and rehabilitation robots from the perspective of medical and healthcare professionals. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Human Implications of Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 34–39). Vancouver, Canada: AAAI Press.
60.
*WangL.RauP. L.EversV.RobinsonB. K.HindsP. (2010). When in Rome: The role of culture and context in adherence to robot recommendations. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 359–366). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
61.
YancoH. A. (2001). Development and testing of a robotic wheelchair system for outdoor navigation. In Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America. Arlington, VA: RESNA Press.
