As security robots take on more societal roles, public resistance can hinder their effectiveness. This study examines how a security robot’s ability to offer rewards (“reward power”) affects public acceptance and trust, which is vital for integrating robots into communities. Using a between-subjects experiment with 106 participants, we tested the impact of high versus low reward power through online video interactions. The results showed that reward power significantly increased robot acceptance by fostering trust during initial interactions. This research contributes to the field of human-security-robot interaction by highlighting the importance of reward power in building trust and acceptance. These findings provide design guidelines for improving public trust and acceptance, essential for successful real-world deployments of security robots.
BlissJ. P.LongS. K.Karpinsky-MosleyN. (2019). Cross-cultural reactions to peacekeeping robots wielding non-lethal weapons. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 2292–2297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631189
CartwrightD.ZanderA. (1960). Group dynamics. Row & Peterson.
4.
CormierD.NewmanG.NakaneM.YoungJ. E.DurocherS. (2013). Would you do as a robot commands? An obedience study for human-robot interaction. International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, 13, 1–18.
5.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
6.
DiekmannK. A.SamuelsS. M.RossL.BazermanM. H. (1997). Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1061. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1061
7.
EsterwoodC.GuanR.YeX.RobertL. P. (2025). Virtually the same or realistically different?: A meta-analysis of real vs. ‘not so real’ robots [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2025 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3721488.3721558
8.
FerdikF. V.SmithH. P. (2016). Maximum security correctional officers: An exploratory investigation into their social bases of power. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 498–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12103-015-9307-5
9.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12103-015-9307-5
10.
FrenchJ. R.RavenB. (1959). The bases of social power. Studies in Social Power, 25, 150–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/jj.12381759.38
11.
GallimoreD.LyonsJ. B.VoT.MahoneyS.WynneK. T. (2019). Trusting robocop: Gender-based effects on trust of an autonomous robot. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, e00482. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00482
12.
GaudielloI.ZibettiE.LefortS.ChetouaniM.IvaldiS. (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
13.
GhazizadehM.LeeJ. D.BoyleL. N. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to assess automation. Cognition, Technology & Work, 14, 39–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0194-3
14.
GreenbergJ. (1978). Effects of reward value and retaliative power on allocation decisions: Justice, generosity, or greed?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.367
15.
HartmanR.MossA. J.JaffeS. N.RosenzweigC.LitmanL.RobinsonJ. (2023). Introducing connect by cloud research: Advancing online participant recruitment in the digital age. PsyArXiv preprints, 1–25.
16.
HashemianM.CoutoM.MascarenhasS.PaivaA.SantosP. A.PradaR. (2020). Persuasive social robots using reward/coercion strategies [Conference session]. Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 230–232). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3371382.3378373
17.
HashemianM.CoutoM.MascarenhasS.PaivaA.SantosP. A.PradaR. (2021). Persuasive social robot using reward power over repeated instances of persuasion [Conference session]. International Conference on Persuasive Technology (pp. 63–70). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79460-6_6
18.
HashemianM.PaivaA.MascarenhasS.SantosP. A.PradaR. (2019). The power to persuade: A study of social power in human-robot interaction [Conference session]. 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), (pp. 1–8). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956298
19.
LongS. K.KarpinskyN. D.BlissJ. P. (2017). Trust of simulated robotic peacekeepers among resident and expatriate Americans. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61(1), 2091–2095. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1541931213602005
20.
LyonsJ. B.VoT.WynneK. T.MahoneyS.NamC. S.GallimoreD. (2021). Trusting autonomous security robots: The role of reliability and stated social intent. Human Factors, 63(4), 603–618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720820901629
21.
MarcuG.LinI.WilliamsB.RobertL. P.JrSchaubF. (2023). “Would I feel more secure with a robot?”: Understanding perceptions of security robots in public spaces. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610171
22.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258792
23.
RobertL. P.DenisA. R.HungY.-T. C. (2009). Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(2), 241–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260210
24.
RotterG. S. (1964). Reward power and social influence (Publication No. 6501665) [Doctoral dissertation, New York University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
25.
SaundersonS. P.NejatG. (2021). Persuasive robots should avoid authority: The effects of formal and real authority on persuasion in human-robot interaction. Science Robotics, 6(58), eabd5186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abd5186
26.
StichmanA. J. (2003). The sources and impact of inmate perceptions of correctional officers’ bases of power. University of Cincinnati.
TangT. L.-P. (2016). Theory of monetary intelligence: Money attitudes—religious values, making money, making ethical decisions, and making the grade. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 583–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2411-5
TylerT. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/652233
31.
TylerT.JacksonJ.BradfordB. (2013). Procedural justice and cooperation. In BruinsmaG.WeisburdD. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 4011–4024). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_64
32.
WarrenD. I. (1968). Power, visibility, and conformity in formal organizations. American Sociological Review, 33(6), 951–970. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2092686
33.
YeX.JoW.AliA.BhattiS. C.EsterwoodC.KassieH. A.RobertL. P. (2024). Autonomy acceptance model (AAM): The role of autonomy and risk in security robot acceptance [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 840–849). https://doi.org/10.1145/3610977.3635005
34.
YeX.RobertL. P. (2024). A human–security robot interaction literature review. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 14(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3700888
35.
ZhangQ.YangX. J.RobertL. PJr. (2022). Individual differences and expectations of automated vehicles. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(9), 825–836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1970431
