Previous research has shown that the design of robots can impact the level of trust, liking, and empathy that a user feels towards a robot. Additionally, this empathy can have direct impacts on users’ interactions with the system. Existing research has looked at how empathy can influence user willingness to, for example, put the robot in harm’s way or to destroy the robot. However, these studies have been inherently reliant upon narrative driven manipulations, which may result in experimental demands which could have influenced the results. As such, we provide a human-likeness manipulation in order to evaluate the impacts of design which may evoke empathy, on use of robots in high-risk environments. Results indicate no significant difference in robot use between conditions. These results are in conflict with previous research. More research is needed to understand when users are/are not willing to use a robot in a high-risk environment.
References
1.
CulleyK. E.MadhavanP. (2013). A note of caution regarding anthropomorphism in HCI agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 577–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.023
2.
DarlingK.NandyP.BreazealC. (2015). Empathic concern and the effect of stories in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2015-Novem, 770–775. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2015.7333675
3.
de VisserE. J.MonfortS. S.MckendrickR.SmithM. A. B.McknightP. E.KruegerF. (2016). Almost Human : Anthropomorphism Increases Trust Resilience in Cognitive Almost Human : Anthropomorphism Increases Trust Resilience in Cognitive Agents AQ: au. August. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000092
4.
DuN.HuangK. Y.YangX. J. (2019). Not All Information Is Equal: Effects of Disclosing Different Types of Likelihood Information on Trust, Compliance and Reliance, and Task Performance in Human-Automation Teaming. Human Factors, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819862916
5.
GarreauJ. (2008). Bots on The Ground: In the Field of Battle (Or Even Above It), Robots Are a Soldier’s Best Friend. The Washington Post, 2–7.
6.
GillmoreS.TenhundfeldN. L. (2020). The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: Evaluating Tesla’s Human Factors in the Wild West of Self-Driving Cars. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21229.54245
7.
GrimmP. (2010). Social desirability bias. Wiley international encyclopedia of marketing.
8.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y. C.de VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254
9.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
10.
KulmsP.KoppS. (2019). More human-likeness, more trust? The effect of anthropomorphism on self-reported and behavioral trust in continued and interdependent human-agent cooperation. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340764.3340793
11.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.L50_30392
12.
LeeJ. D.WickensC. D.LiuY.BoyleL. N. (2017). Designing for People (3rd ed.).
13.
LiJ. (2015). The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 77, 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.01.001
14.
OnnaschL.RoeslerE. (2019). Anthropomorphizing robots: The effect of framing in human-robot collaboration. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society.
15.
RiekL. D.RabinowitchT. C.ChakrabartiB.RobinsonP. (2008). How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI’09, 245–246. https://doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514158
16.
RiekL. D.RabinowitchT. C.ChakrabartizB.RobinsonP. (2009). Empathizing with robots: Fellow feeling along the anthropomorphic spectrum. Proceedings - 2009 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and Workshops, ACII2009. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2009.5349423
17.
SeoS. H.GeiskkovitchD.NakaneM.KingC.YoungJ. E. (2015). Poor Thing! Would You Feel Sorry for a Simulated Robot?: A comparison of empathy toward a physical and a simulated robot. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696471
18.
TenhundfeldN. L.de VisserE. J.HaringK. S.RiesA. J.FinomoreV. S.TossellC. C. (2019). Calibrating Trust in Automation Through Familiarity With the Autoparking Feature of a Tesla Model X. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343419869083
19.
TenhundfeldN. L.de VisserE. J.RiesA. J.FinomoreV. S.TossellC. C. (2020). Trust and Distrust of Automated Parking in a Tesla Model X. Human Factors, 62(2), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819865412
20.
TenhundfeldN. L.PhillipsE. K.DavisJ. R. (2020). Robot Career Fair: An Exploratory Evaluation of Anthropomorphic Robots in Various Career Categories. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
21.
WenJ.StewartA.BillinghurstM.DeyA.FinomoreV. S.TossellC. C. (2018). He who hesitates is lost (…in thoughts over a robot). Proceedings of the Technology, Mind, and Society, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3183654.3183703
