The Relationship Between Trust and Use Choice in Human-Robot Interaction

Abstract

Objective:

To understand the influence of trust on use choice in human-robot interaction via experimental investigation.

Background:

The general assumption that trusting a robot leads to using that robot has been previously identified, often by asking participants to choose between manually completing a task or using an automated aid. Our work further evaluates the relationship between trust and use choice and examines factors impacting choice.

Method:

An experiment was conducted wherein participants rated a robot on a trust scale, then made decisions about whether to use that robotic agent or a human agent to complete a task. Participants provided explicit reasoning for their choices.

Results:

While we found statistical support for the “trust leads to use” relationship, qualitative results indicate other factors are important as well.

Conclusion:

Results indicated that while trust leads to use, use is also heavily influenced by the specific task at hand. Users more often chose a robot for a dangerous task where loss of life is likely, citing safety as their primary concern. Conversely, users chose humans for the mundane warehouse task, mainly citing financial reasons, specifically fear of job and income loss for the human worker.

Application:

Understanding the factors driving use choice is key to appropriate interaction in the field of human-robot teaming.

Keywords

human-robot interaction human-automation interaction trust use choice reliance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Dey

(2003). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. New York: Routledge.

Dijkstra

J. J.

(1999). User agreement with incorrect expert system advice. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18, 399–411.

Donnellan

M. B.

Oswald

F. L.

Baird

B. M.

Lucas

R. E.

(2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Peterson

S. A.

Pomranky

R. A.

Pierce

L. G.

Beck

H. P.

(2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 697–718.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Pierce

L. G.

Beck

H. P.

Dawe

L. A.

(2002). The perceived utility of human and automated aids in a visual detection task. Human Factors, 44, 79–94.

Forbes

Roger

(1999). Stress, social support and fear of disclosure. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 165–179.

Hancock

P. A.

(2018). Some pitfalls in the promise of automated vehicles. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Hancock

P. A.

Billings

D. R.

Schaefer

K. E.

(2011). Can you trust your robot? Ergonomics in Design, 19(3), 24–29.

Hancock

P. A.

Billings

D. R.

Schaefer

K. E.

Chen

J. Y.

De Visser

E. J.

Parasuraman

(2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53, 517–527.

10.

Hancock

P. A.

Weaver

J. L.

Parasuraman

(2002). Sans subjectivity, ergonomics is engineering. Ergonomics, 45, 991–994.

11.

Hoff

K. A.

Bashir

(2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57, 407–434.

12.

Jian

Bisantz

A. M.

Drury

C. G.

(2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4, 53–71.

13.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.

14.

Lyons

J. B.

Stokes

C. K.

(2012). Human–human reliance in the context of automation. Human Factors, 54(1), 112–121.

15.

Moray

Inagaki

Itoh

(2000). Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 44–58.

16.

Nickerson

J. V.

Reilly

R. R.

(2004). A model for investigating the effects of machine autonomy on human behavior. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004 (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: IEEE.

17.

Nomura

Suzuki

Kanda

Kato

(2006). Altered attitudes of people toward robots: Investigation through the Negative Attitudes toward Robots Scale. Retrieved from https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2006/WS-06-09/WS06-09-006.pdf

18.

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.

19.

Salem

Lakatos

Amirabdollahian

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 Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 141–148). New York, NY: ACM.

20.

Schaefer

K. E.

Chen

J. Y.

Szalma

J. L.

Hancock

P. 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.

21.

Takayama

Nass

(2008). Beyond dirty, dangerous and dull: What everyday people think robots should do. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 25–32). New York, NY: ACM.

22.

Wilson

J. M.

Straus

S. G.

McEvily

(2006). All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 16–33.