This work explores the theoretical foundations of trust which provide the framework for the development of our model of human-robot team trust. The pragmatic purpose for this model is to provide a greater understanding of the factors that facilitate the development of human operator trust in robotic teammates. We predicate the model’s structure with our findings from a quantitative meta-analysis that we have completed. Our approach categorizes the dimensions influencing trust in human-robot interaction. To date, we have explored human, robot and environmental-based factors. Our road map for model development and refinement is here outlined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsD.WetherellM.CochraneS.HoggM. A.TurnerJ. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97-119.
2.
AdamsB. D.BruynL. E.HoudeS.AngelopoulosP. (2003). Trust in automated systems literature review. DRDC Toronto No. CR-2003-096.
3.
BainbridgeW.A.HartJ.KimE.S.ScassellatiB. (2008). The effect of presence on human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Community. Munich, Germany.
4.
BarczakG.LasskF.MulkiJ. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust, and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332-345.
5.
BartneckC.KulicD.CroftE.ZoghbiS. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robots, 1, 71-81.
6.
BirosD. P.DalyM.GunschG. (2004). The influence of task load and automation trust on deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 173-189.
7.
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, PP Issue 99, 1-20.
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(8), 907-920.
9.
CosenzoK. A.BarnesM.ParasuramanR.NovakA. (2006). Implementation of automation for control of robotic systems (ARL-Technical Report 3808). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.
10.
DasT. K.TengB. S. (2004). The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1), 85-116.
11.
DavidsA. (2002). Urban search and rescue robots: From tragedy to technology. IEEEMarch/April, 81-83.
12.
DautenhahnK. (2007). Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 679-704.
13.
de RuyterB.SainiP.MarkopoulousP.van BreemanA. (2005). Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in robotic interface in the home. Interacting with Computers, 17(5), 522-541.
14.
De SantisA.SicilianoB.De LucaA.BicchiA. (2008). Review: An atlas of physical human-robot interaction. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 43, 253-270.
15.
DesaiM. (2007). Sliding scale autonomy and trust in human-robot interaction (Master’s thesis). University of Massachusetts Lowell.
16.
DruryJ. L.RiekL.RackliffeN. (2006). A decomposition of UAV-related situation awareness. Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot Interaction. New York, NY, USA, 88-94.
17.
DuffyB. (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, (42), 177-190.
18.
EversV.MaldanadoH.BrodeckiT.HindsP. (2008). Group selfconstructual: Untangling the role of national culture in HRI. Proceedings in the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, 255-262.
19.
FallonC. K.BustamonteE. A.ElyK. M. R.BlissJ. P. (2005). Improving user trust with a likelihood alarm display. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Augmented Cognition, Las Vegas, NV.
20.
FongT.NourbakhshI.DautenhahnK. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 143-166
21.
FoxJ.E. (1996). The effects of information accuracy on user trust and compliance. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems: common ground. New York, NY.
22.
FreedyA.de VisserE.WeltmanG.CoeymanN. (2007). Measurements of trust in human-robot collaboration. Collaborative Technologies and Systems, 106-114.
23.
GroomV.NassC. (2007). Can robots be teammates? Benchmarks in human-robot teams. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 483-5000.
24.
HancockP.A.BillingsD. R.OlesonK. E.ChenJ. Y. C.De VisserE.ParasuramanR. (2011, in review). A meta-analysis of factors impacting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors.
25.
HeerinkM.KröseB.EversV. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361-375.
26.
HudlickaE.Becker-AsanoC.PayrS.FischerK.VenturaR.LeitiI.von ScheveC. (2009). Social interaction with robots and agents: Where do we stand, where do we go?Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and Workshops (pp 1-6). Amsterdam.
27.
JonesG. R.GeorgeJ. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531-546.
28.
KhanZ. (1998). Attitudes towards intelligent service robots (Technical Report No. TRITA-NA-P9821). Stockholm, Sweden: Numerical Analysis and Computing Science, Royal Institute of Technology.
29.
KiddC. D. (2003). Sociable robots: The role of presence and task in human-robot interaction (Master’s thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
30.
KiddC. D.BreazealC. (2004). Effect of a robot on user perceptions. Proceedings of 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sendai, Japan.
31.
KoayK. LDautenhahnK.WoodsS. N.WaltersM. L. (2005). Empirical results from using a comfort level device in human-robot interaction studies. Proceedings from Human-Robot Interaction, Lake City, Utah.
32.
LeBlancD. J. (2007). Increasing operator trust through knowledge. (Master’s thesis). Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, ON, Canada.
33.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80.
34.
LiD.RauP.LiY. (2010). A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robots, 2, 175-186.
35.
LooijeR.NeerincxM. A.CnossenM. (2010). Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: Design and evaluation of social behaviors. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(6), 386-397.
36.
LussierB.GallienM.GuiochetJ. (2007). Fault tolerant planning for critical robots. Proceedings of the 37th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks.
37.
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.
38.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
39.
MerrittS. M.IlgenD. R. (2008). Not all trust is created equal: Dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Human Factors, 50(2), 194-210.
40.
NassC.FoggB.J.MoonY. (1996). Can computers be teammates?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 669-678.
41.
NielsenC. W.BruemmerD. J. (2007). Hiding the system from the user: Moving from complex mental models to elegant metaphors. Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 756-761). Jeju Island, Korea.
42.
OlsenD. R.GoodrichM. A. (2003). Metrics for evaluating human–robot interactions. Proceedings of NIST Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems Workshop, Washington, DC, USA.
43.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230-253.
44.
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(2), 140-160.
45.
PatrickA. (2002). Privacy, trust, agents, and users: A review of human factors issues associated with building trustworthy software agents. Human Factors of Trustworthy Agents, 1(6), 1-12.
46.
RauP. L.LiY.LiD. (2009). Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 587-595.
47.
RempelJ. K.HolmesJ. G.ZannaM. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.
48.
RossJ.M. (2008). Moderators of trust and reliance across multiple decision aids. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
49.
ScopellitiM.GiulianiM. V.FornaraF. (2005). Robots in a domestic setting: A psychological approach. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(2), 146-155.
50.
SheridanT. B. (2002). Humans and automation: System design and research issues. Santa Monica, CA: Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated.
51.
SteinfeldA.FongT.KaberD.LewisM.ScholtzJ.SchultzA.GoodrichM. (2006). Common metrics for human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 33-40). Salt Lake City, Utah.
52.
TenneyY. J.RogersW. H.PewR. W. (1998). Pilot opinions of cockpit automation issues. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(2), 103-120.
53.
WangL.RauP. L.EversV.RobinsonB. K.HindsP. (2010). When in Rome: The role of culture and context in adherence to robot recommendations. Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 359-366). Osaka, Japan.
54.
WeberJ. (2005). Helpless machines and true loving care givers: A feminist critique of recent trends in human robot interaction. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 3(4), 209-218.
55.
WeissA.BernhauptR.LankesM.TscheligiM. (2009). The USUS evaluation framework for human-robot interaction. AISB2009: Proceedings of the Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction. Edinburgh, Scotland.
