We investigated the co-acting influences of communication and social conformity on trust in human-robot interaction.
Background:
Previous work has investigated aspects of the robot, the human, and the environment as influential factors in the human-robot relationship. Little work has examined the conjoint effects of social conformity and communication on this relationship. As social conformity and communication have been shown to affect human-human trust, there are a priori reasons to believe that they will play an influential role in human-robot trust also.
Method:
The experiment examined the influences of social conformity and robot communication on trust. A 2 × 2 (communication × social group) design was implemented with each variable having two levels (communication, no communication; positive social group, negative social group).
Results:
We created a communication manipulation which we then demonstrated to mediate the trust level between human and robot. However, this influence on trust was overcome by social information in which the subsequent trust level, attributed to the robot, was dominated by expressed social group attitudes to that robot.
Conclusion:
The results confirm the importance of human social assessments over direct robot communication in setting human-robot trust levels. When social opinions are expressed, observers appear to conform to the trust displayed by the group than relying on their own judgment.
Application:
In human-robot teams, the perceptions of the group may exert a greater impact than even robot communication. This may be especially important when new human members are introduced into such teams.
AlarconG. M.LyonsJ. B.ChristensenJ. C. (2016). The effect of propensity to trust and familiarity on perceptions of trustworthiness over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 309–315.
2.
AschS. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35.
3.
AschS.E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70.
4.
BecknerC.RaczP.HayJ.BrandstetterJ.BartneckC. (2015). Participants conform to humans but not to humanoid robots in an English past tense formation Task. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(2), 158–179.
5.
BergmanJ. Z.SmallE. E.BergmanS. M.RentschJ. R. (2010). Asymmetry in perceptions of trustworthiness: It’s not you; it’s me. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3, 379–399.
6.
BernerthJ. B.WalkerH. J. (2009). Propensity to trust and the impact on social exchange: An empirical investigation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(3), 217–226.
7.
BondR. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(4), 331–354.
8.
BondR.SmithP. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111–137.
9.
BrandstetterJ.RaczP.BecknerC.SandovalE. B.HayJ.BartneckC. (2014). A peer pressure experiment: Recreation of the Asch conformity experiment with robots. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1335–1340. IEEE.
10.
CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
11.
CouchL. L.JonesW. H. (1997). Measuring levels of trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(3), 319–336.
12.
CrutchfieldR. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10(5), 191–198.
13.
DeutschM. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(4), 265–279.
14.
DonnellanM. B.OswaldF. L.BairdB. M.LucasR. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.
15.
DriscollJ. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 44–56.
16.
EvansR. J. W. (1953). Rudolf II and his world: A study in intellectual history, 1576–1612. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
17.
FittsP. M. (Ed.). (1951). Human engineering for an effective air-navigation and traffic-control system. Washington, DC: National Research Council Committee on Aviation Psychology.
18.
FreedyA.DeVisserE.WeltmanG.CoeymanN. (2007). Measurement of trust in human-robot collaboration. Proceedings of Collaborative Technologies and Systems, Orlando, FL, 106–114.
19.
GiffinK. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68(2), 104–120.
20.
GroomV.NassC. (2007). Can robots be teammates? Benchmarks in human-robot teams. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 483–500.
21.
HamiltonJ. E.HancockP. A. (1986). Robotics safety: Exclusion guarding for industrial operations. Journal of Occupational Accidents, 8, 69–78.
22.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.OlesonK. E. (2011). Can you trust your robot?Ergonomics in Design, 19(3), 24–29.
23.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y.De VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517–527.
24.
HancockP. A.MatthewsG. (2018). Workload and performance: Associations, insensitivities and dissociations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
25.
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(1), 151–181.
26.
KanaiH.NiitsumaM. (2016, August). Update of human-robot relationship based on ethologically inspired human-robot communication history. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium, 324–330.
27.
KeeH. W.KnoxR. E. (1970). Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 14(3), 357–366.
28.
KesslerT.LariosC.WalkerT.YerdonV.HancockP. A. (2017). A comparison of trust measures in human-robot interaction scenarios. In Savage-KnepshieldP.ChenJ. (eds.) Advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems: Advances in intelligent systems and computing (vol. 499, pp. 353–364). Springer, Cham.
29.
KurfessT. R. (Ed.). (2005). Robotics and automation handbook. New York, NY: CRC Press.
30.
LauD. C.LamL. W.SalamonS. D. (2008). The impact of relational demographics on perceived managerial trustworthiness: Similarity or norms?The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 187–209.
31.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.
32.
MahoneyR. M. (1997). Robotic products for rehabilitation: Status and strategy. Proceedings of ICORR 1997: International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Bath, UK, 12–17.
33.
MarpaungA. (2004). Toward building a social robot with an emotion-based internal control (Doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando.
34.
MerrittS. M.HeimbaughH.LaChapellJ.LeeD. (2013). I trust it, but I don’t know why: Effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Human Factors, 55, 520–534.
35.
NomuraT.KandaT.SuzukiT. (2006). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI & Society, 20, 138–150.
36.
OgretenS.LackeyS.NicholsonD. (2010). Recommended roles for uninhabited team members within mixed-initiative combat teams. Collaborative Technologies and Systems (CTS), 2010 International Symposium on IEEE, 531–536.
37.
OnoS.OboT.KiongL. C.KubotaN. (2015). Robot communication based on relational trust model. Industrial Electronics Society, IECON 2015-41st Annual Conference of the IEEE, 5335–5338. IEEE.
38.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
39.
ParkE.JenkinsQ.JiangX. (2008). Measuring trust of human operators in new generation rescue robots. Proceedings of the JFPS International Symposium on Fluid Power. Toyoma, Japan, pp. 489–492.
40.
PasupathiM. (1999). Age differences in response to conformity pressure for emotional and non-emotional material. Psychology and Aging, 14, 170–174.
41.
PhillipsE.SchaeferK. E.BillingsD. R.JentschF.HancockP. A. (2016). Human—animal teams as an analog for future human-robot teams: Influencing design and fostering trust. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 5, 100–125.
42.
RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. S. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
43.
RosanderM.ErikssonO. (2012). Conformity on the Internet–The role of task difficulty and gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1587–1595.
44.
RotterJ. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665.
45.
SandersT. L.WixonT.SchaferK. E.ChenJ. Y.HancockP. A. (2014). The influence of modality and transparency on trust in human-robot interaction. Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA), 2014 IEEE International Inter-Disciplinary Conference, 156–159.
46.
SchaeferK. E. (2013). The perception and measurement of human–robot trust (Doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando.
47.
SchaeferK. E.AdamsJ. K.CookJ. G.Bardwell-OwensA.HancockP. A. (2015). The future of robotic design: Trends from the history of media representations. Ergonomics in Design, 23(1), 13–19.
48.
SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y.SzalmaJ. L.HancockP. A. (2016). A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: Implications for understanding autonomy in future systems. Human Factors, 58, 377–400.
49.
SherifM. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27(187), 1–60.
50.
TaylorG. P. (1938). An automatic block-setting crane. Meccano Magazine, 23(3): 172.
51.
YafaiA. F.VerrierD.ReidyL. (2014). Social conformity and autism spectrum disorder: A child-friendly take on a classic study. Autism, 18, 1007–1013.
