Trust as indicator of robot functional and social acceptance. An experimental study on user conformation to iCub answers

To investigate the functional and social acceptance of a humanoid robot, we carried out an experimental study with 56 adult participants and the iCub robot. Trust in the robot has been considered as a main indicator of acceptance in decision-making tasks characterized by perceptual uncertainty (e.g., evaluating the weight of two objects) and socio-cognitive uncertainty (e.g., evaluating which is the most suitable item in a specific context), and measured by the participants' conformation to the iCub's answers to specific questions. In particular, we were interested in understanding whether specific (i) user-related features (i.e. desire for control), (ii) robot-related features (i.e., attitude towards social influence of robots), and (iii) context-related features (i.e., collaborative vs. competitive scenario), may influence their trust towards the iCub robot. We found that participants conformed more to the iCub's answers when their decisions were about functional issues than when they were about social issues. Moreover, the few participants conforming to the iCub's answers for social issues also conformed less for functional issues. Trust in the robot's functional savvy does not thus seem to be a pre-requisite for trust in its social savvy. Finally, desire for control, attitude towards social influence of robots and type of interaction scenario did not influence the trust in iCub. Results are discussed with relation to methodology of HRI research.

[1]  Michael Steven Siegel,et al.  Persuasive robotics : how robots change our minds , 2008 .

[2]  Pei-Luen Patrick Rau,et al.  A Cross-cultural Study: Effect of Robot Appearance and Task , 2010, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[3]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

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

[5]  Shaun Nichols,et al.  Experimental Philosophy and the Problem of Free Will , 2011, Science.

[6]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Social Roles and Baseline Proxemic Preferences for a Domestic Service Robot , 2014, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[7]  Byron Reeves,et al.  Robots as New Media: A Cross-Cultural Examination of Social and Cognitive Responses to Robotic and On-Screen Agents , 2002 .

[8]  Heshan Sun,et al.  The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[9]  Christian Guimelli,et al.  La pensée sociale , 1999 .

[10]  Grant S. Taylor,et al.  Individual differences in response to automation: the five factor model of personality. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[11]  Rolf Dieter Schraft,et al.  PowerMate – A Safe and Intuitive Robot Assistant for Handling and Assembly Tasks , 2005, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[12]  Ass,et al.  Can computers be teammates? , 1996 .

[13]  Sebastian Thrun.  Toward a framework for human-robot interaction , 2004 .

[14]  Coniferous softwood.  GENERAL TERMS , 2003 .

[15]  W. Hofmann,et al.  A Meta-Analysis on the Correlation Between the Implicit Association Test and Explicit Self-Report Measures , 2005, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[16]  David Lee,et al.  The influence of subjects' personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment , 2005, ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005..

[17]  J. Rotter.  Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. , 1971 .

[18]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction , 2006, AI & SOCIETY.

[19]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computer personalities be human personalities? , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[20]  Kristin E. Schaefer,et al.  The Perception And Measurement Of Human-robot Trust , 2013 .

[21]  T. Komatsu,et al.  Adaptation gap hypothesis : How differences between users ’ expected and perceived agent functions affect their subjective impression , 2010 .

[22]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  User acceptance of information technology , 2001 .

[23]  Nina Riether,et al.  On the profoundness and preconditions of social responses towards social robots : experimental investigations using indirect measurement techniques , 2013 .

[24]  Tatsuo Arai,et al.  Direct comparison of psychological evaluation between virtual and real humanoids: Personal space and subjective impressions , 2014, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[25]  Mark A. Neerincx,et al.  Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: Design and evaluation of social behaviors , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[26]  Henrik I. Christensen,et al.  Robots in the wild: Understanding long-term use , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

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

[28]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  Utilitarian vs. hedonic robots: Role of parasocial tendency and anthropomorphism in shaping user attitudes , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[29]  Robert E. Pinsker,et al.  Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. , 2012 .

[30]  Stephanie M. Carlson,et al.  Behaving as or behaving as if? Children's conceptions of personified robots and the emergence of a new ontological category , 2010, Neural Networks.

[31]  Dana Kulic,et al.  Affective State Estimation for Human–Robot Interaction , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[32]  MarkopoulosPanos,et al.  Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home , 2005 .

[33]  Donald D. Dudenhoeffer,et al.  Evaluation of supervisory vs. peer-peer interaction with human-robot teams , 2004, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.

[34]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Anthropomorphism, agency, and ethopoeia: computers as social actors , 1993, INTERCHI Adjunct Proceedings.

[35]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  To kill a mockingbird robot , 2007, 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[36]  T. Ostrom.  The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude. , 1969 .

[37]  Gentiane Venture,et al.  Social vs. Useful HRI: Experiencing the Familiar, Perceiving the Robot as a Sociable Partner and Responding to Its Actions , 2013, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[38]  Friederike Eyssel,et al.  Improving attitudes towards social robots using imagined contact , 2014, The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[39]  Tetsuo Ono,et al.  Development and evaluation of interactive humanoid robots , 2004, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[40]  Pierre-Yves Oudeyer,et al.  Object Learning Through Active Exploration , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development.

[41]  J. Dinet,et al.  Exploratory investigation of attitudes towards assistive robots for future users , 2014 .

[42]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Towards Safe and Trustworthy Social Robots: Ethical Challenges and Practical Issues , 2015, ICSR.

[43]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[44]  H. Cooper,et al.  The desirability of control , 1979 .

[45]  Sherry Turkle,et al.  Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other , 2011 .

[46]  Emily C. Collins,et al.  Framing Factors: The Importance of Context and the Individual in Understanding Trust in Human-Robot Interaction , 2015 .

[47]  M. Coeckelbergh.  Can we trust robots? , 2011, Ethics and Information Technology.

[48]  Deborah Lee,et al.  I Trust It, but I Don’t Know Why , 2013, Hum. Factors.

[49]  D. Kahneman.  A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. , 2003, The American psychologist.

[50]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Computationally modeling interpersonal trust , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[51]  David P. Biros,et al.  The Influence of Task Load and Automation Trust on Deception Detection , 2004 .

[52]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[53]  Ewart de Visser,et al.  Measurement of trust in human-robot collaboration , 2007, 2007 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems.

[54]  Manfred Tscheligi,et al.  The USUS Evaluation Framework for Human-Robot Interaction , 2009 .

[55]  Ravi Kiran Sarvadevabhatla,et al.  Captain may I? Proxemics study examining factors that influence distance between humanoid robots, children, and adults, during human-robot interaction , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

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

[57]  Wendy A. Rogers,et al.  Understanding Robot Acceptance , 2011 .

[58]  K. Popper,et al.  La connaissance objective , 1982 .

[59]  Florian Jentsch,et al.  Building Appropriate Trust in Human-Robot Teams , 2013, AAAI Spring Symposium: Trust and Autonomous Systems.

[60]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[61]  Ehud Sharlin,et al.  Toward Acceptable Domestic Robots: Applying Insights from Social Psychology , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[62]  Mohamed Chetouani,et al.  Robot initiative in a team learning task increases the rhythm of interaction but not the perceived engagement , 2014, Front. Neurorobot..

[63]  C. Nass,et al.  Machines and Mindlessness , 2000 .

[64]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal study of interacting teams. , 2005 .

[65]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Whose Job Is It Anyway? A Study of Human-Robot Interaction in a Collaborative Task , 2004, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[66]  Somaya Ben Allouch,et al.  The Influence of Control on the Acceptance of Ambient Intelligence by Elderly People: An Explorative Study , 2008, AmI.

[67]  Rudolf Carnap,et al.  Introduction to semantics , 1942 .

[68]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Not All Trust Is Created Equal: Dispositional and History-Based Trust in Human-Automation Interactions , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[69]  Holly A. Yanco,et al.  Potential measures for detecting trust changes , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[70]  J. V. van Berkum,et al.  How robust is the language architecture? The case of mood , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[71]  Illah R. Nourbakhsh,et al.  A survey of socially interactive robots , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[72]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Emotion and sociable humanoid robots , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[73]  Friederike Eyssel,et al.  The mental simulation of a human-robot interaction: Positive effects on attitudes and anxiety toward robots , 2012, 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[74]  A. Takanishi,et al.  Walking in the uncanny valley: importance of the attractiveness on the acceptance of a robot as a working partner , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[75]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Tell me more designing HRI to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship , 2016, 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[76]  Giulio Sandini,et al.  The iCub Platform: A Tool for Studying Intrinsically Motivated Learning , 2013, Intrinsically Motivated Learning in Natural and Artificial Systems.

[77]  Tatsuo Arai,et al.  Evaluation of human sense of security for coexisting robots using virtual reality. 1st report: evaluation of pick and place motion of humanoid robots , 2004, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA '04. 2004.

[78]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  The elements of computer credibility , 1999, CHI '99.

[79]  Laurel D. Riek,et al.  Wizard of Oz studies in HRI , 2012, J. Hum. Robot Interact..

[80]  Peter Ford Dominey,et al.  Cooperative human robot interaction systems: IV. Communication of shared plans with Naïve humans using gaze and speech , 2013, 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[81]  John S. Seiter,et al.  Persuasion: Social Inflence and Compliance Gaining , 2015 .

[82]  J. Piaget.  Logique et connaissance scientifique , 1967 .

[83]  K. MacDorman,et al.  Facilitators and Barriers to Adopting Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Contextualizing the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2011, PloS one.

[84]  Rosalind W. Picard,et al.  Evaluating affective interactions: Alternatives to asking what users feel , 2005 .

[85]  Ben J. A. Kröse,et al.  Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults: the Almere Model , 2010, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[86]  Holly A. Yanco,et al.  Creating Trustworthy Robots: Lessons and Inspirations from Automated Systems , 2009 .

[87]  Ilaria Gaudiello.  Learning robotics, with robotics, by robotics : a study on three paradigms of educational robotics, under the issues of robot representation, robot acceptance, and robot impact on learning , 2015 .

[88]  A. Evans,et al.  Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust , 2008 .

[89]  Maartje M. A. de Graaf,et al.  Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots , 2013, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[90]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  Human-robot interaction: Developing trust in robots , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

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

[92]  F. Schmidt.  Meta-Analysis , 2008 .

[93]  Andrea Lockerd Thomaz,et al.  Tutelage and socially guided robot learning , 2004, 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566).

[94]  J Blascovich,et al.  Social "facilitation" as challenge and threat. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[95]  Philip Webb,et al.  The Development of a Scale to Evaluate Trust in Industrial Human-robot Collaboration , 2015, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[96]  Sebastian Thrun,et al.  Towards A Framework for Human-Robot Interaction , 2004 .

[97]  K. K. Cetina.  Sociality with Objects , 1997 .

[98]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Would You Trust a (Faulty) Robot? Effects of Error, Task Type and Personality on Human-Robot Cooperation and Trust , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[99]  Marco Gillies,et al.  Integrating autonomous behavior and user control for believable agents , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[100]  Kerstin Eder,et al.  Towards the safety of human-in-the-loop robotics: Challenges and opportunities for safety assurance of robotic co-workers' , 2014, The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[101]  Matthias Scheutz,et al.  Sacrifice One For the Good of Many? People Apply Different Moral Norms to Human and Robot Agents , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[102]  Corinne Büching,et al.  FabLab: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors , 2013 .

[103]  Torbjørn S. Dahl,et al.  Robots in Health and Social Care: A Complementary Technology to Home Care and Telehealthcare? , 2013, Robotics.

[104]  Marcel Heerink,et al.  Assessing acceptance of assistive social robots by aging adults , 2010 .

[105]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  A personalized robot companion? - The role of individual differences on spatial preferences in HRI scenarios , 2007, RO-MAN 2007 - The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

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

[107]  Glenda Shaw-Garlock,et al.  Looking Forward to Sociable Robots , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[108]  Holly A. Yanco,et al.  A Taxonomy for Human-Robot Interaction , 2002 .

[109]  Futoshi Naya,et al.  Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[110]  Giulio Sandini,et al.  Force feedback exploiting tactile and proximal force/torque sensing , 2012, Autonomous Robots.

[111]  Willem F. G. Haselager,et al.  Do Robot Performance and Behavioral Style a ↵ ect Human Trust ? A Multi-Method Approach , 2014 .

[112]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  Common metrics for human-robot interaction , 2006, HRI '06.

[113]  Kerstin Fischer,et al.  Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[114]  Brian R. Duffy,et al.  Anthropomorphism and the social robot , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[115]  Paolo Dario,et al.  Design for Acceptability: Improving Robots’ Coexistence in Human Society , 2010, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[116]  S. Starkie.  Free will , 1985, Nature.

[117]  Bertram F. Malle,et al.  Bringing free will down to Earth: People’s psychological concept of free will and its role in moral judgment , 2014, Consciousness and Cognition.

[118]  Maryam Alavi,et al.  Revisiting DSS Implementation Research: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature and Suggestions for Researchers , 1992, MIS Q..

[119]  Dana E. Sims,et al.  Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration , 2007 .

[120]  Frédéric Kaplan,et al.  Who is Afraid of the Humanoid? Investigating Cultural Differences in the Acceptance of Robots , 2004, Int. J. Humanoid Robotics.

[121]  Peter Robinson,et al.  Robot, Rabbit, or Red Herring? Societal Acceptance as a Function of Classification Ease , 2008 .

[122]  D. DavisFred,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology , 1989 .

[123]  Cory D. Kidd,et al.  Sociable robots : the role of presence and task in human-robot interaction , 2003 .

[124]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[125]  Richard J. Crisp,et al.  Imagined intergroup contact , 2013 .

[126]  Dana Kulic,et al.  Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[127]  Manja Lohse,et al.  Investigating the influence of situations and expectations in user behavior - empirical analysis in human-robot interaction , 2010 .

[128]  Elisabetta Zibetti,et al.  Moving on its Own: How do Audience Interacts with an Autonomous Moving Artwork , 2015, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[129]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  Human-robot proxemics: Physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[130]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review, : . , 1995 .

[131]  Jeffrey M. Bradshaw,et al.  The Dynamics of Trust in Cyberdomains , 2009, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[132]  Eui Park,et al.  MEASURING TRUST OF HUMAN OPERATORS IN NEW GENERATION RESCUE ROBOTS , 2008 .

[133]  Marina Fridin,et al.  Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[134]  Uttama Lahiri,et al.  An Approach to the Design of Socially Acceptable Robots for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders , 2010, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[135]  Nilanjan Sarkar,et al.  Online stress detection using psychophysiological signals for implicit human-robot cooperation , 2002, Robotica.

[136]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[137]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Influences of experiences of robots into Negative Attitudes toward Robots , 2014, The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[138]  Lars Oestreicher,et al.  User Expectations on Human-Robot Co-operation , 2006, ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[139]  Abraham Z. Snyder,et al.  fMRI reveals reciprocal inhibition between social and physical cognitive domains , 2013, NeuroImage.

[140]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots , 2006, AI & SOCIETY.

[141]  Ben J. A. Kröse,et al.  The Influence of Social Presence on Acceptance of an Assistive Social Robot and Screen Agent by Elderly Users , 2009 .

[142]  Ilaria Gaudiello,et al.  The ontological and functional status of robots: How firm our representations are? , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[143]  Maferima Touré-Tillery,et al.  Who or What to Believe: Trust and the Differential Persuasiveness of Human and Anthropomorphized Messengers , 2015 .

[144]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Detecting the Trustworthiness of Novel Partners in Economic Exchange , 2012, Psychological science.

[145]  Vanessa Evers,et al.  BEHAVE-II: The Revised Set of Measures to Assess Users’ Attitudinal and Behavioral Responses to a Social Robot , 2013, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[146]  R. Zajonc.  SOCIAL FACILITATION. , 1965, Science.

[147]  Russell H. Fazio,et al.  On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: Look to the method of attitude formation , 1977 .

[148]  Tracy Sanders,et al.  Interpersonal distance effects on trust relationships in human-robot interaction , 2015 .

[149]  David Fishlock,et al.  Alone or Together , 1967 .

[150]  T. Kanda,et al.  A cross-cultural study on attitudes towards robots , 2005 .

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

[152]  Rosemarie E. Yagoda,et al.  You Want Me to Trust a ROBOT? The Development of a Human–Robot Interaction Trust Scale , 2012, International Journal of Social Robotics.