The ‘intuitive’ trust people feel when encountering robots in public spaces is a key determinant of their interactions with the systems. To study the trust we presented subjects with static images of a robot performing an access-control task, interacting with younger and older male and female civilians, applying polite or impolite behavior. Our results showed strong effects of the robot’s behavior. Age and gender of the people interacting with the robot had no significant effect on participants’ impressions of the robot’s attributes. This preliminary study shows that politeness may be a crucial determinant of people’s perception of peacekeeping robots.
References
1.
ArkinR. C. (2008, March). Governing lethal behavior: Embedding ethics in a hybrid deliberative/reactive robot architecture part I: Motivation and philosophy. In Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on (pp. 121-128). IEEE.
2.
BlissJ. P.FallonC.HeadenN.GaskinsR. C. (2004, September). Crowd reactions to sublethal weapons: Universal triggers for crowd violence. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 48, No. 22, pp. 2543-2547). SAGE Publications.
3.
DautenhahnK. (2007). Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 679-704.
4.
DesaiM.StubbsK.SteinfeldA.YancoH. (2009). Creating trustworthy robots: Lessons and inspirations from automated systems. Proceedings of the AISB Convention: New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction.
5.
DoneyP. M.CannonJ. P.MullenM. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 601-620.
6.
DuffyB. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3), 177-190.
7.
FongT.NourbakhshI.DautenhahnK. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3), 143-166.
8.
Foster ThompsonL.GillanD. J. (2012), in JentschF.BarnesM. M. (Eds.). (2012). Human-Robot Interactions in Future Military Operations. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
9.
GoetzJ.KieslerS.PowersA. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003. The 12th IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 55-60). IEEE.
10.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E. (2011). Can you trust your robot?Ergonomics in Design, 19(3), 24-29.
11.
InbarO.TractinskyN. (2012). Lowering the line of visibility: incidental users in service encounters. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(3), 245-260.
12.
KhanS. A.SinghT.BölöniL. (2012, March). Soldiers, robots and local population-modeling cross-cultural values in a peacekeeping scenario. In Proc. of the 21th Behavior Representation in Modeling & Simulation (BRIMS) Conference (March 2012).
13.
KirbyR.ForlizziJ.SimmonsR. (2010). Affective social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 58(3), 322-332.
14.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80.
15.
LinP.BekeyG.AbneyK. (2008). Autonomous military robotics: Risk, ethics, and design. California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo.
16.
MeyerJ. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43(4), 563-572.
17.
MillerC. (Ed.), (2004). Human-Computer Etiquette: Managing Expectations with an Intentional Agent. Special section in Communications of the ACM.
18.
MillerC. A. (2005). Trust in adaptive automation: the role of etiquette in tuning trust via analogic and affective methods. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Augmented Cognition (pp. 22-27).
19.
MontagueE.XuJ. (2012). Understanding active and passive users: The effects of an active user using normal, hard and unreliable technologies on user assessment of trust in technology and co-user. Applied Ergonomics, 43(4), 702-712.
20.
OgdenB.DautenhahnK. (2000). Robotic etiquette: Structured interaction in humans and robots. In Proceedings SIRS 2000, 8th Symposium on Intelligent Robotic Systems. University of Reading.
21.
ParasuramanR.MillerC. A. (2004). Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 51-55.
22.
PerssonA.WanekB.JohanssonA. (2001). Passive versus active operator work in automated process control—a job design case study in a control center. Applied Ergonomics, 32(5), 441-451.
23.
ReevesB.NassC. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge University press.
24.
SchaeferK. E. (2013). The Perception and Measurement of Human-robot Trust (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida).
25.
ScholtzJ. (2003, January). Theory and evaluation of human robot interactions. In System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.
26.
TapusA.ŢăpuşC.MatarićM. J. (2008). User—robot personality matching and assistive robot behavior adaptation for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. Intelligent Service Robotics, 1(2), 169-183.
27.
YagodaR. E.GillanD. J. (2012). You want me to trust a ROBOT? The development of a human–robot interaction trust scale. International Journal of Social Robotics, 4(3), 235-248.
