Trust Repair in Performance, Process, and Purpose Factors of Human-Robot Ttust

The current study explored the influence of trust and distrust behaviors on performance, process, and purpose (trustworthiness) perceptions over time when participants were paired with a robot partner. We examined the changes in trustworthiness perceptions after trust violations and trust repair after those violations. Results indicated performance, process, and purpose perceptions were all affected by trust violations, but perceptions of process and purpose decreased more than performance following a distrust behavior. Similarly, trust repair was achieved in performance perceptions, but trust repair in perceived process and purpose was absent. When a trust violation occurred, process and purpose perceptions deteriorated and failed to recover from the violation. In addition, the trust violation resulted in untrustworthy perceptions of the robot. In contrast, trust violations decreased partner performance perceptions, and subsequent trust behaviors resulted in a trust repair. These findings suggest that people are more sensitive to distrust behaviors in their perceptions of process and purpose than they are in performance perceptions.

[1]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  It's (Not) Your Fault! Blame and Trust Repair in Human-Agent Cooperation , 2017 .

[2]  Holly A. Yanco,et al.  Classifying human-robot interaction: an updated taxonomy , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37583).

[3]  Lauren Reinerman-Jones,et al.  The Relevance of Theory to Human-Robot Teaming Research and Development , 2017 .

[4]  Stephen L. Jones,et al.  Diagnosing the locus of trust: A temporal perspective for trustor, trustee, and dyadic influences on perceived trustworthiness. , 2016, The Journal of applied psychology.

[5]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  V. Groom,et al.  Can robots be teammates?: Benchmarks in human–robot teams , 2007 .

[7]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  Theory and evaluation of human robot interactions , 2003, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the.

[9]  S. Shamsuddin,et al.  Initial response of autistic children in human-robot interaction therapy with humanoid robot NAO , 2012, 2012 IEEE 8th International Colloquium on Signal Processing and its Applications.

[10]  Joyce E. Berg,et al.  Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History , 1995 .

[11]  Peter C M Molenaar,et al.  Selecting a linear mixed model for longitudinal data: repeated measures analysis of variance, covariance pattern model, and growth curve approaches. , 2012, Psychological methods.

[12]  Gene M. Alarcon,et al.  The effect of propensity to trust and perceptions of trustworthiness on trust behaviors in dyads , 2017, Behavior Research Methods.

[13]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction , 2011, Hum. Factors.

[14]  Tyler H. Shaw,et al.  From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: the importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction , 2018, Ergonomics.

[15]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .