Evolving Trust in Robots: Specification Through Sequential and Comparative Meta-Analyses

Abstract

Objective

The objectives of this meta-analysis are to explore the presently available empirical findings on the antecedents of trust in robots and use this information to expand upon a previous meta-analytic review of the area.

Background

Human–robot interaction (HRI) represents an increasingly important dimension of our everyday existence. Currently, the most important element of these interactions is proposed to be whether the human trusts the robot or not. We have identified three overarching categories that exert effects on the expression of trust. These consist of factors associated with (a) the human, (b) the robot, and (c) the context in which any specific HRI event occurs.

Method

The current body of literature was examined and all qualifying articles pertaining to trust in robots were included in the meta-analysis. A previous meta-analysis on HRI trust was used as the basis for this extended, updated, and evolving analysis.

Results

Multiple additional factors, which have now been demonstrated to significantly influence trust, were identified. The present results, expressed as points of difference and points of commonality between the current and previous analyses, are identified, explained, and cast in the setting of the emerging wave of HRI.

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis expands upon previous work and validates the overarching categories of trust antecedent (human-related, robot-related, and contextual), as well as identifying the significant individual precursors to trust within each category. A new and updated model of these complex interactions is offered.

Application

The identified trust factors can be used in order to promote appropriate levels of trust in robots.

Keywords

robotics trust human–robot interaction meta-analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

*Alaiad

Zhou

. (2014). The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83, 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.07.003

American Psychological Association . (2016). Personality. http://www.apa.org/topics/personality/.

+Aremyr

, Jönsson

Strömberg

. (2018). Anthropomorphism: An investigation of its effect on trust in human-machine interfaces for highly automated vehicles. In Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (pp. 343–352). Springer.

Avizienis

, Laprie

J.-C.

, Randell

Landwehr

. (2004). Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 1, 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2004.2

+Bainbridge

W. A.

, Hart

, Kim

E. S.

Scassellati

. (2008). The effect of presence on human-robot interaction. In RO-MAN 2008-The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 701–706). IEEE.

Bandura

. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

+Baraka

, Rosenthal

Veloso

. (2016). Enhancing human understanding of a mobile robot's state and actions using expressive lights. In 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 652–657). IEEE.

Bartneck

, Kulić

, Croft

Zoghbi

. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3

Carron

A. V.

, Brawley

L. R.

Widmeyer

W. N

. (1998). Measurement of cohesion in sport and exercise. In

J. L.

Duda

(Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213–226). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

10.

+Charalambous

, Fletcher

Webb

. (2016). The development of a scale to evaluate trust in industrial human-robot collaboration. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0333-8

11.

Cheung

S. F.

Chan

D. K.-S

. (2004). Dependent effect sizes in meta-analysis: Incorporating the degree of interdependence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 780–791. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.780

12.

Competence. (n.d.). Retrieved August 16, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competence

13.

+Daniel

, Thomessen

Korondi

. (2013). Simplified human-robot interaction: Modeling and Evaluation. Modeling, Identification and Control: A Norwegian Research Bulletin, 34, 199–211. https://doi.org/10.4173/mic.2013.4.4

14.

+De Bruijn

M. L. E

. (2013). The base of trust in human-robot interaction. Radboud University Nijmegen.

15.

+De Visser

Parasuraman

. (2011). Adaptive aiding of human-robot teaming: Effects of imperfect automation on performance, trust, and workload. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 5, 209–231.

16.

+Desai

, Kaniarasu

, Medvedev

, Steinfeld

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 (pp. 251–258). IEEE Press.

17.

Dragan

A. D.

, Lee

K. C.

Srinivasa

S. S

. (2013). Legibility and predictability of robot motion. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (pp. 301–308). IEEE Press.

18.

Duffy

B. R

. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3

19.

Endsley

M. R

. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37, 32–64. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543

20.

*Erebak

Turgut

. (2018). Caregivers’ attitudes toward potential robot coworkers in elder care. Cognition, Technology & Work, 21, 1–10.

21.

*+Evers

, Maldonado

, Brodecki

Hinds

. (2008). Relational vs. group self-construal: untangling the role of national culture in HRI. In 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 255–262). IEEE.

22.

Expectancy. (n.d.). Retrieved January 21, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expectancy

23.

Fong

, Thorpe

Baur

. (2003). Collaboration, dialogue, human-robot interaction. In Robotics research (pp. 255–266). Springer.

24.

+Gaudiello

, Zibetti

, Lefort

, Chetouani

Ivaldi

. (2016). Trust as indicator of robot functional and social acceptance. An experimental study on user conformation to iCub answers. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.057

25.

George

J. M.

Jones

G. R

. (2005). Organizational Behavior (Vol. 418). Prentice Hall.

26.

+Gonsior

, Sosnowski

, Mayer

, Blume

, Radig

, Wollherr

Kühnlenz

. (2011). Improving aspects of empathy subjective performance for HRI through mirroring emotions. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 350–356). RO-MAN.

27.

Graetz

Michaels

. (2018). Robots at work. Review of Economics and Statistics, 100, 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00754

28.

Green

D. M.

Swets

J. A

. (1988). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Google Scholar.

29.

+Groom

, Srinivasan

, Bethel

C. L.

, Murphy

, Dole

Nass

. (2011). Responses to robot social roles and social role framing. In 2011 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS) (pp. 194–203). IEEE.

30.

Hamilton

J. E.

Hancock

P. A

. (1986). Robotics safety: Exclusion guarding for industrial operations. Journal of Occupational Accidents, 8, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6349(86)90030-1

31.

Hancock

P. A

. (1996). Effects of control order, augmented feedback, input device and practice on tracking performance and perceived workload. Ergonomics, 39, 1146–1162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139608964535

32.

Hancock

P. A

. (2014). Automation: How much is too much? Ergonomics, 57, 449–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.816375

33.

Hancock

P. A

. (2018). On the design of time. Ergonomics in design: the quarterly of human factors applications, 26, 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804617735018

34.

Hancock

P. A.

, Billings

D. R.

Schaefer

K. E

. (2011). Can you trust your robot? Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 19, 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804611415045

35.

Hancock

P. A.

, Billings

D. R.

, Schaefer

K. E.

, Chen

J. Y. C.

, de Visser

E. J.

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, 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254

36.

Hancock

P. A.

, Kessler

, Kaplan

A. D.

, Stowers

, Brill

J. C.

, Billings

D. R.

, Schaefer

K. E.

Szalma

J. L

. (2020). How humans trust: A meta-analysis on human-human trust [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida.

37.

Hancock

P. A.

, Nourbakhsh

Stewart

. (2019). On the future of transportation in an era of automated and autonomous vehicles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 7684–7691. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805770115

38.

*Haring

K. S.

, Matsumoto

Watanabe

. (2013). How do

people perceive and trust a lifelike robot?

In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science (Vol. 1).

39.

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E

. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In

P. A.

Hancock

Meshkati

(Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). North-Holland.

40.

*Heerink

. (2011). Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 147–148). Lausanne, Switzerland, ACM.

41.

+Heerink

, Kröse

, Evers

Wielinga

. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2, 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5

42.

Hofstede

. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.

43.

Jiang

, Zhang

Q.-P.

Zhou

. (2018). Dynamic creative interaction networks and team creativity evolution: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52, 168–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.141

44.

+Joosse

, Lohse

, Pérez

J. G.

Evers

. (2013). What you do is who you are: The role of task context in perceived social robot personality. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 2134–2139). IEEE.

45.

Jøsang

, Ismail

Boyd

. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43, 618–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.019

46.

+Kaniarasu

Steinfeld

A. M

. (2014). Effects of blame on trust in human robot interaction. In The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 850–855). IEEE.

47.

Kessler

T. T.

, Larios

, Walker

, Yerdon

Hancock

P. A

. (2017). A comparison of trust measures in human–robot interaction scenarios. In Advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems (pp. 353–364). Springer.

48.

*Kidd

C. D.

Breazeal

. (2004). September). Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566) (Vol. 4, pp. 3559–3564). IEEE.

49.

+Kiesler

, Powers

, Fussell

S. R.

Torrey

. (2008). Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot–like agent. Social Cognition, 26, 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.169

50.

*+Kim

K. J.

, Park

Sundar

S. S

. (2013). Caregiving role in human–robot interaction: A study of the mediating effects of perceived benefit and social presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1799–1806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.009

51.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A

. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392

52.

Lewis

, Sycara

Walker

. (2018). The role of trust in human-robot interaction. In

H. A.

Abbass ,

Scholz

D. J.

Reid

(Eds.), Foundations of trusted autonomy (pp. 135–159). Springer.

53.

*+Li

, Rau

P. L. P.

. (2010). A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0056-9

54.

Liu

. (2012). Task complexity: A review and conceptualization framework. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42, 553–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2012.09.001

55.

*Looije

, Neerincx

M. A.

Cnossen

. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.08.007

56.

Lyons

. (2013). Trust and Influence. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR).

57.

MacArthur

K. R.

, Stowers

Hancock

P. A

. (2017). Human-robot interaction: Proximity and speed—slowly back away from the robot! In Advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems (pp. 365–374). Springer International Publishing.

58.

Macey

W. H.

Schneider

. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x

59.

+Mann

J. A.

, MacDonald

B. A.

, Kuo

I.-H.

, Li

Broadbent

. (2015). People respond better to robots than computer tablets delivering healthcare instructions. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.029

60.

Mathieu

J. E.

, Heffner

T. S.

, Goodwin

G. F.

, Salas

Cannon-Bowers

J. A

. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273

61.

*Mathur

M. B.

Reichling

D. B

. (2016). Navigating a social world with robot partners: A quantitative cartography of the Uncanny Valley. Cognition, 146, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.008

62.

Muir

B. M

. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37, 1905–1922. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139408964957

63.

*Mutlu

, Yamaoka

, Kanda

, Ishiguro

Hagita

. (2009). Nonverbal leakage in robots: communication of intentions through seemingly unintentional behavior. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 69–76). ACM.

64.

+Nie

, Pak

, Marin

A. L.

Sundar

S. S

. (2012). Can you hold my hand? Physical warmth in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 201–202). ACM.

65.

*Nomura

Kanda

. (2015). Influences of evaluation and gaze from a robot and humans’ fear of negative evaluation on their preferences of the robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0270-y

66.

Nomura

, Kanda

, Suzuki

Kato

. (2004, September). Psychology in human-robot communication: An attempt through investigation of negative attitudes and anxiety toward robots. In Robot and human interactive communication, 2004. ROMAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 35–40). IEEE.

67.

Nomura

, Suzuki

, Kanda

Kato

. (2006). Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interaction Studies, 7, 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.14nom

68.

Ososky

, Schuster

, Phillips

Jentsch

F. G

. (2013). Building appropriate trust in human-robot teams. In AAAI Spring Symposium Series (pp. 60–65). AAAI.

69.

Parasuraman

Riley

. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886

70.

Parasuraman

, Sheridan

T. B.

Wickens

C. D

. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354

71.

Physical Appearance. (n.d.). Retrieved May 28, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical%20appearance

72.

Physical environment. (n.d.). Retrieved August 16, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical environment

73.

+Powers

, Kiesler

, Fussell

Torrey

. (2007, March). Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 145–152). ACM.

74.

*+Rau

P. L. P.

, Li

. (2009). Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.025

75.

+Rau

P. L. P.

, Li

Liu

. (2013). Effects of a social robot's autonomy and group orientation on human decision-making. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2013, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/263721

76.

*+Ross

. (2008) Moderators of trust and reliance across multiple decision aids [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Central Florida.

77.

Rotter

J. B

. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x

78.

Saavedra

, Earley

P. C.

Van Dyne

. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.61

79.

Salem

, Lakatos

, Amirabdollahian

Dautenhahn

. (2015). Would you trust a (faulty) robot?: Effects of error, task type and personality on human-robot cooperation and trust. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 141–148). Hatfield, UK: ACM.

80.

Sanders

T. L

. (2016) Individual differences in trust towards robotic assistant [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Central Florida

81.

Sanders

, Kaplan

, Koch

, Schwartz

Hancock

P. A

. (2019). The relationship between trust and use choice in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 61, 614–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818816838

82.

+Sanders

T. L.

, Wixon

, Schafer

K. E.

, Chen

J. Y.

Hancock

P. A

. (2014). March). The influence of modality and transparency on trust in human-robot interaction. 2014 IEEE International Inter-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA) (pp. 156–159). IEEE.

83.

Satisfaction. (n.d.). Retrieved January 21, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/satisfaction

84.

*Schaefer

. (2013) The perception and measurement of human-robot trust. Doctoral Dissertation.: University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida

85.

Schaefer

K. E.

, Billings

D. R.

, Szalma

J. L.

, Adams

J. K.

, Sanders

T. L.

, Chen

J. Y.

Hancock

P. A

. (2014). A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: Implications for human-robot interaction (No. ARL-TR-6984). Army Research Lab, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Human Research Engineering Directorate.

86.

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.

87.

+Scopelliti

, Giuliani

M. V.

Fornara

. (2005). Robots in a domestic setting: A psychological approach. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4, 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-005-0118-1

88.

+Selkowitz

A. R.

, Lakhmani

S. G.

Chen

J. Y. C

. (2017). Using agent transparency to support situation awareness of the autonomous squad member. Cognitive Systems Research, 46, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.02.003

89.

Smith

Hancock

P. A

. (1995). Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed consciousness. Human Factors, 37, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049444

90.

+Srinivasan

Takayama

. (2016). Help me please: Robot politeness strategies for soliciting help from humans. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4945–4955). ACM.

91.

Stack

L. C

. (1978). Trust. In

London

E. E.

Exner, Jr

(Eds.), Dimensions of personality. Wiley.

92.

+Stanton

C. J.

Stevens

C. J

. (2017). Don’t stare at me: the impact of a humanoid robot’s gaze upon trust during a cooperative human–robot visual task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9, 745–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0422-y

93.

Stewart

G. L

. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277792

94.

Stowers

, Kasdaglis

, Rupp

, Chen

, Barber

Barnes

. (2017a). Insights into human-agent teaming: Intelligent agent transparency and uncertainty. In Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems (pp. 149–160). Springer International Publishing.

95.

Stowers

, Oglesby

, Sonesh

, Leyva

, Iwig

Salas

. (2017b). A framework to guide the assessment of human–machine systems. Human Factors, 59, 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817695077

96.

Sørensen

J. B

. (2000). The longitudinal effects of group tenure composition on turnover. American Sociological Review, 65, 298–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657442

97.

Tajfel

Billic

. (1974). Familiarity and categorization in intergroup behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(74)90064-X

98.

Trenholm

Jensen

. (2013). Interpersonal Communication (7th ed., pp. 360–361). Oxford University Press.

99.

+Tsui

K. M.

, Desai

Yanco

H. A

. (2010). Considering the bystander's perspective for indirect human-robot interaction. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 129–130). IEEE.

100.

Tsui

K. M.

, Desai

, Yanco

H. A.

Uhlik

. (2011). Exploring use cases for telepresence robots. In 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 11–18). IEEE.

101.

+Ullman

, Leite

, Phillips

, Kim-Cohen

Scassellati

. (2014). Smart human, smarter robot: How cheating affects perceptions of social agency. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 36).

102.

+Ullman

Malle

B. F

. (2017). Human-robot trust: Just a button press away. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 309–310). ACM.

103.

+van den Brule

, Dotsch

, Bijlstra

, Wigboldus

D. H. J.

Haselager

. (2014). Do robot performance and behavioral style affect human trust? International Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0231-5

104.

+Wang

, Pynadath

D. V.

, Rovira

, Barnes

M. J.

Hill

S. G

. (2018). Is it my looks? Or something i said? The impact of explanations, embodiment, and expectations on trust and performance in human-robot teams. In International Conference on Persuasive Technology (pp. 56–69). Springer.

105.

*Wang

, Rau

P. L. P.

, Evers

, Robinson

B. K.

Hinds

. (2010). March). When in Rome: the role of culture & context in adherence to robot recommendations. Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 359–366). Stanford, CA, USA: IEEE.

106.

Yagoda

R. E.

Gillan

D. J

. (2012). You want me to trust a ROBOT? The development of a human–robot interaction trust scale. International Journal of Social Robotics, 4, 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0144-0