Would You Trust a (Faulty) Robot? Effects of Error, Task Type and Personality on Human-Robot Cooperation and Trust

Maha Salem, Gabriella Lakatos, Farshid Amirabdollahian, K. Dautenhahn

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

215 Citations (Scopus)
32 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

How do mistakes made by a robot affect its trustworthiness and acceptance in human-robot collaboration? We investigate how the perception of erroneous robot behavior may influence human interaction choices and the willingness to
cooperate with the robot by following a number of its unusual requests. For this purpose, we conducted an experiment in which participants interacted with a home companion robot in one of two experimental conditions: (1) the
correct mode or (2) the faulty mode. Our findings reveal that, while significantly affecting subjective perceptions of the robot and assessments of its reliability and trustworthiness, the robot's performance does not seem to substantially
influence participants' decisions to (not) comply with its requests. However, our results further suggest that the nature of the task requested by the robot, e.g. whether its effects are revocable as opposed to irrevocable, has a signicant im-
pact on participants' willingness to follow its instructions.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationHRI'15 Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
Place of PublicationNew York
PublisherACM Press
Pages141-148
ISBN (Print)978-1-4503-2883-8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Mar 2015
EventHRI’15 - Oregon, USA, Portland, United States
Duration: 2 Mar 20155 Mar 2015

Conference

ConferenceHRI’15
Country/TerritoryUnited States
CityPortland
Period2/03/155/03/15

Keywords

  • Social Human-Robot Interaction
  • Cooperation
  • Trust

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Would You Trust a (Faulty) Robot? Effects of Error, Task Type and Personality on Human-Robot Cooperation and Trust'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this