Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effect of trust repair behavior on human-robot interaction

로봇의 신뢰회복 행동이 인간-로봇 상호작용에 미치는 영향

  • Hoyoung, Maeng (Interdisciplinary Program in Cognitive Science, Seoul National University) ;
  • Whani, Kim (Department of Psychology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Jaeun, Park (Department of Psychology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Sowon, Hahn (Interdisciplinary Program in Cognitive Science, Seoul National University)
  • 맹호영 (서울대학교 협동과정 인지과학전공) ;
  • 김환이 (서울대학교 심리학과) ;
  • 박재은 (서울대학교 심리학과) ;
  • 한소원 (서울대학교 협동과정 인지과학전공)
  • Received : 2022.11.21
  • Accepted : 2022.12.13
  • Published : 2022.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aimed to confirm the effect of social and relational behavior types of robots on human cognition in human-robot interaction. In the experiment, the participants evaluated trust in robots by watching a video on the robot Nao interacting with a human, in which the robot made an error and then made an effort to restore trust. The trust recovery behavior was set as three conditions: an internal attribution in which the robot acknowledges and apologizes for an error, a condition in which the robot apologizes for an error but attributes it externally, and a non-action condition in which the robot denies the error itself and does not take any action for the error. As the result, in all three cases, the error was perceived as less serious when the robot apologized than when it did not, and the ability of the robot was also highly evaluated. These results provide evidence that human attitudes towards robots can respond sensitively depending on the robot's behavior and how they overcome errors, suggesting that human perception towards robots can change. In particular, the fact that robots are more trustworthy when they acknowledge and apologize for their own errors shows that robots can promote positive human-robot interactions through human-like social and polite behavior.

본 연구는 인간 로봇 상호작용에서 로봇의 사회적이고 관계적인 행동 유형이 인간의 인식에 끼치는 영향을 확인하고자 하였다. 이를 위한 실험에서는 연구 참여자들이 로봇 나오가 인간과 상호작용 하면서 로봇이 오류를 일으키고 신뢰회복을 위한 행동을 영상으로 시청한 후 로봇에 대한 신뢰를 평가하였다. 신뢰회복 행동은 로봇이 오류를 인정하고 사과하는 내부 귀인, 오류가 있었음을 사과하지만 외부로 귀인하는 조건, 오류 자체를 부인, 오류에 대해 아무런 사후 행동을 하지 않는 비 행동 조건으로 설정하였다. 이후 로봇에 대한 인간의 평가를 3가지 측면에서 분석하였다. 첫째, 로봇의 유능함과 정직성에 기반한 신뢰, 둘째 로봇에 대한 지각된 유능함과 정직성, 그리고 로봇의 오류로 인한 신뢰 위반에 대하여 오류의 심각성을 어떻게 지각하는지 탐색하였다. 실험의 결과는 3가지 모든 경우에서 로봇이 사과하지 않을 때보다 사과할 때 오류가 덜 심각하다고 지각하였으며 로봇에 대한 능력 또한 높이 평가하였다. 이러한 연구 결과는 로봇의 행동유형과 오류 극복 방법에 따라 로봇에 대한 인간의 태도가 민감하게 반응 할 수 있다는 근거를 제공하며 로봇에 대한 인간의 지각이 변할 수 있음을 시사한다. 특히 로봇이 스스로의 오류를 인정하고 사과하는 것이 더 신뢰를 높인다는 결과는 로봇이 인간처럼 사회적이고 매너있는 행동을 통해 긍정적인 인간 로봇상호작용을 증진시킬 수 있음을 보여준다.

Keywords

References

  1. Andreasson, R., Alenljung, B., Billing, E., & Lowe, R. (2018). Affective Touch in Human-Robot Interaction: Conveying Emotion to the NAO Robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(4), 473-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0446-3
  2. Alenljung, B., Andreasson, R., Billing, E A., Lindblom, J., & Lowe, R. (2017) User Experience of Conveying Emotions by Touch. In Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 1240-1247). IEEE
  3. Atkinson, D., Hancock, P., Hoffman, R. R., Lee, J. D., Rovira, E., Stokes, C., & Wagner, A. R. (2012). Trust in computers and robots: The uses and boundaries of the analogy to interpersonal trust. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56(1), 303-307. Sage.
  4. Baker, A. L., Phillips, E. K.,Ullman, D., & Keebler, J. R. (2018). Toward an understanding of trust repair in human-robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 8(4), 1-30.
  5. Bansal, G., & Zahedi, F. M. (2015). Trust violation and repair: The information privacy perspective. Decision Support Systems, 71, 62-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.01.009
  6. Bartneck, C. (2003). Interacting with an Embodied Emotional Character. In Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Designing pleasurable products and interfaces (pp. 55-60).
  7. Beck, A., Stevens, B., Bard, K. A., & Canamero, L. (2012). Emotional Body Language Displayed by Artificial Agents. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 2(1), 1-29.
  8. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. (1996). Beyond distrust: 'Getting even' and the need for revenge. In. R. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Eds.) Trust in organizations (pp. 246-260).
  9. Breazeal, C. (2004). Social Interactions in HRI: the robot view. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 34(2), 181-186. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2004.826268
  10. Broadbent, E., Kumar, V., Li, X., Sollers 3rd, J., Stafford, R. Q., MacDonald, B. A., & Wegner, D. M. (2013). Robots with Display Screens: A Robot with a More Human like Face Display Is Perceived to Have More Mind and a Better Personality. PloS ONE, 8(8), e72589. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072589
  11. Butler, J.K., Jr., & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19-28. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1984.55.1.19
  12. Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S.J., & Loeber, C.C. (1995). Nonverbal Behavior, Gender, and Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1030-1041. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1030
  13. Carney, D.R., Hall, J.A., & Smith-LeBeau, L. (2005). Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29(2), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-005-2743-z
  14. Cassell, J., & Bickmore, T. (2003). Negotiated collusion: Modeling social language and its relationship effects in intelligent agents. User modeling and user-adapted interaction, 13(1-2), 89-132. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024026532471
  15. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631-648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
  16. Desai, M.,Kaniarasu, P., Medvedev, M., Steinfeld, A., & Yanco, H. (2013). Impact ofrobot failures and feedback on real-time trust. In 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 251-258.
  17. DeSteno, D., Breazeal, C., Frank, R. H., Pizarro, D., Baumann, J., Dickens, L., & Lee,J. J. (2012). Detecting the Trustworthiness of Novel Partners in Economic Exchange. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1549-1556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612448793
  18. De Visser, E. J., Pak, R., & Shaw, T. H. (2018). From "automation" to "autonomy": The importance of trust repair in human-machine interaction. Ergonomics, 61(10), 1409-1427. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1457725
  19. Dirks, K.T., Lewicki, R. J., & Zaheer, A. (2009). Repairing relationships within and between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 68-84. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.35713285
  20. Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
  21. Engelhardt, S., Hansson, E., & Leite, I. (2017, August). Better Faulty than Sorry: Investigating Social Recovery Strategies to Minimize the Impact of Failure in Human-Robot Interaction. In WCIHAI@ IVA, 19-27.
  22. Fratczak, P., Goh, Y. M., Kinnell, P., Justham, L., & Soltoggio, A. (2021). Robot apology as a post-accident trust-recovery control strategy in industrial human-robot interaction. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 82.
  23. Ferrin, D.L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks Vols.:The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 893-908. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.893
  24. Fuoli, M., Van de Weijer, J., & Paradis, C. (2017). Denial outperforms apology in repairing organizational trust despite strong evidence of guilt. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 645-660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.07.007
  25. Hald, K., Weitz, K., Andre, E., & Rehm, M. (2021, November). "An Error Occurred!" - Trust Repair With Virtual Robot Using Levels of Mistake Explanation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, 218-226.
  26. Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., De Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517-527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254
  27. Haring, K. S., Matsumoto, Y., & Watanabe, K. (2013). How do people perceive and trust a lifelike robot. Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science, 1, 425-430.
  28. Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
  29. Hur, Y., & Han, J. (2009). Analysis on Children's Tolerance to Weak Recognition of Storytelling Robots. J. Convergence Inf. Technol., 4(3), 103-109. https://doi.org/10.4156/jcit.vol4.issue3.15
  30. Jessup, S.A., Schneider, T. R., Alarcon, G. M., Ryan, T. J., & Capiola, A. (2019). The measurement of the propensity to trust automation. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 476-489.
  31. Jian, J., Bisantz, A. & Drury, C. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53-71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327566IJCE0401_04
  32. Johnson, D. O., & Cuijpers, R. H. (2019). Investigating the Effect of a Humanoid Robot's Head Position on Imitating Human Emotions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(1), 65-74 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0477-4
  33. Kahkonen, T., Blomqvist, K., Gillespie, N., & Vanhala, M. (2021). Employee trust repair: A systematic review of 20 years of empirical research and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 130, 98-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.019
  34. Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus integrity- based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104
  35. Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence-vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 99(1), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.002
  36. Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., & Cooper, C. D. (2009) "The repair of trust: A dynamic bilateral perspective and multi level conceptualization". Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 401-422. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.40631887
  37. Kim, P. H.,Cooper, C. D., Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2013). Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.08.004
  38. Lee, J. D, & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392
  39. Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(1), 153-184. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1994.1007
  40. Lee, K. M., Peng, W., Jin, S. A., & Yan, C. (2006). Can Robots Manifest Personality?: An Empirical Test of Personality Recognition, Social Responses, and Social Presence in Human-Robot Interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 754-772. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00318.x
  41. Leung, S. O. (2011). A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point Likert scales. Journal of social service research, 37(4), 412-421. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.580697
  42. Lewicki, R.J., & Brinsfield, C. (2017). Trust repair. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 287-313. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147
  43. Li, J., Cuadra, A., Mok, B., Reeves, B., Kaye, J., & Ju, W. (2019). Communicating Dominance in a Non anthropomorphic Robot Using Locomotion. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 8(1), 1-14.
  44. Maddux, W. W., Kim, P. H., Okumura, T., & Brett, J. M. (2011). Cultural differences in the function and meaning of apologies. International negotiation, 16(3), 405-425. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180611X592932
  45. Madhavan, D., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2005). Effects of information source, pedigree, and reliability on operators utilization of diagnostic advice. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 49(3), 487-491. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120504900358
  46. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123-136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123
  47. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335
  48. McCall, D., & Kolling, M. (2014). Meaningful categorization of novice programmer errors. In Proceedings of 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 1-8.
  49. McColl, D., & Nejat, G. (2014). Recognizing Emotional Body Language Displayed by a Human-like Social Robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(2), 261-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0226-7
  50. Mende, M., Scott, M. L., van Doorn, J., Grewal, D., & Shanks, I. (2019). Service Robots Rising: How Humanoid Robots Influence Service Experiences and Elicit Compensatory Consumer Responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 535-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718822827
  51. Merritt, S. M., & Ilgen, D. R. (2008). Not all trust is created equal: Dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Human Factors, 50(2), 194-210. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288574
  52. Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The Uncanny Valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98-100.
  53. Muir, B. M., & Moray, N. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39, 429-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139608964474
  54. Nass, C. I., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
  55. Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are Social Actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 72-78).
  56. Purington, A., Taft J. G., Sannon, S., Bazarova, N. N., & Taylor, S. H. (2017). "Alexa is my new BFF," Social Roles, User Satisfaction, and Personification of the Amazon Echo. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Expended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2853-2859).
  57. Robinette, P., Howard, A. M., &Wagner, A. R. (2017). Effect of robot performance on human-robot trust in time-critical situations. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 47(4), 425-436. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2017.2648849
  58. Salem, M., Eyssel, F., Rohlfing, K., Kopp, S., & Joublin, F. (2013). To Err is Human(-like): Effects of Robot Gesture on Perceived Anthropomorphism and Likability. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(3), 313-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0196-9
  59. Salem, M., Lakatos, G., Amirabdollahian, F., & Dautenhahn, K. (2015, March). Would you trust a (faulty) robot? Effects of error, task type and personality on human-robot cooperation and trust. In 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
  60. Sanders, T.,Kaplan, A., Koch, R., Schwartz, M., & Hancock, P. A. (2019). The relationship between trust and use choice in human-robot interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61(4),614-626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818816838
  61. Strait, M. K., Floerke, V. A., Ju, W., Maddox, K., Remedios, J. D., Jung, M. F., & Urry, H. L. (2017). Understanding the Uncanny: Both Atypical Features and Category Ambiguity Provoke Aversion toward Humanlike Robots. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1366 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01366
  62. Schaefer K. E. (2016) Measuring Trust in Human Robot Interactions: Development of the "Trust Perception Scale-HRI". In Robust Intelligence and Trust in Autonomous Systems (pp. 191-218). Springer, Boston, MA.
  63. Sebo, S. S., Krishnamurthi, P., & Scassellati, B. (2019). "I Don't Believe You":Investigating the Effects of Robot Trust Violation and Repair. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 57-65). IEEE.
  64. Sebo, S. S., Traeger, M., Jung, M., & Scassellati, B. (2018). The ripple effects of vulnerability: The effects of a robot's vulnerable behavior on trust in human-robot teams. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 178-186.
  65. Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30(2), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.003
  66. Torre, I., Goslin, J., White, L., & Zanatto, D. (2018). Trust in artificial voices: "A congruency effect" of first impressions and behavioral experience. In Proceedings of the Technology, Mind, and Society, 1-6.
  67. Traeger, M.L., Sebo, S. S., Jung, M., Scassellati, B., & Christakis, N. A. (2020). Vulnerable Robots Positively Shape Human Conversational Dynamics in a Human-Robot Team. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6370-6375. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910402117
  68. Utz, S., Matzat, U., & Snijders, C. (2009). On-line reputation systems: The effects of feedback comments and reactions on building and rebuilding trust in on-line auctions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(3), 95-118. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415130304
  69. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, L., Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems, 5998-6008.
  70. Wang, L., Jamieson, G. A., & Hollands, J. G. (2009). Trust and reliance on an automated combat identification system. Human Factors, 51(3), 281-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720809338842
  71. Weun, S., Beatty, S. E., & Jones, M. A. (2004). The impact of service failure severity on service recovery evaluations and post-recovery relationships. The Journal of Services Marketing, 18(2), 133-146. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040410528737
  72. Xu, J., Broekens, J.,Hindriks, K., & Neerincx, M. A. (2014). Robot Mood is Contagious: Effects of Robot Body Language in the Imitation Game. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 973-980.