The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Timing Is Key for Robot Trust Repair
Open accessAbstract
Even the best robots will eventually make a mistake while performing their tasks. In our past experiments, we have found that even one mistake can cause a large loss in trust by human users. In this paper, we evaluate the effects of a robot apologizing for its mistake, promising to do better in the future, and providing additional reasons to trust it in a simulated office evacuation conducted in a virtual environment. In tests with 319 participants, we find that each of these techniques can be successful at repairing trust if they are used when the robot asks the human to trust it again, but are not successful when used immediately after the mistake. The implications of these results are discussed. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In an emergency setting, where an apology right after violated trust has not recovered trust, an apology right before the next trust decision point has repaired trust.”
From Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies (2020) · cites this paper as [63]
In the citing paper
“Promises lead to a better trust recovery than apologies, and in general, the message timing and exact content was shown to be crucial [63].”
From Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies (2020) · cites this paper as [63]
Citations
Cites
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 1×
“Our approach to trust is guided by research from psychology [15], human factors [5], and neuroscience[4].”
MethodEvaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
Getting to Know You: Reputation and Trust in a Two-Person Economic Exchange
King-Casas, B., Tomlin, D., Anen, C., Camerer, C. F., Quartz, S. R., & Montague, P. R. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1108062 · Cited by 1,345
Psychological foundations of incentives
Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/s0014-2921(01)00208-2 · Cited by 1,240
Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2005) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.002 · Cited by 577
Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust
Schweitzer, M. E., Hershey, J. C., & Bradlow, E. T. (2006) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.005 · Cited by 568
Psychological Foundations of Trust
Simpson, J. A. (2007) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00517.x · Cited by 541
Effect of Robot Performance on Human–Robot Trust in Time-Critical Situations
Robinette, P., Howard, A. M., & Wagner, A. R. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2017.2648849 · Cited by 205
Self-citationThe role of trust and relationships in human-robot social interaction
Wagner, A. R. (2009) · Cited by 50
Self-citationInsights toward robot-assisted evacuation
Shell, D. A., & Matarić, M. J. (2005) · Advanced Robotics · doi:10.1163/1568553055011483 · Cited by 44
Information propagation applied to robot-assisted evacuation
Robinette, P., Vela, P. A., & Howard, A. (2012) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra.2012.6225122 · Cited by 28
Self-citationAssessment of robot guidance modalities conveying instructions to humans in emergency situations
Robinette, P., Wagner, A. R., & Howard, A. (2014) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/roman.2014.6926390 · Cited by 27
Self-citationMethodology for study of human-robot social interaction in dangerous situations
Atkinson, D. J., & Clark, M. H. (2014) · International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI) · doi:10.1145/2658861.2658871 · Cited by 26
Incorporating a model of human panic behavior for robotic-based emergency evacuation
Robinette, P., & Howard, A. (2011) · doi:10.1109/roman.2011.6005265 · Cited by 20
Self-citationTrust in emergency evacuation robots
Robinette, P., & Howard, A. (2012) · IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR) · doi:10.1109/ssrr.2012.6523903 · Cited by 17
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios
Robinette, P., Li, W., Allen, R., Howard, A. M., & Wagner, A. R. (2016) · 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1109/hri.2016.7451740 · Cited by 468
Self-citationTowards a Theory of Longitudinal Trust Calibration in Human–Robot Teams
de Visser, E. J., Peeters, M. M. M., Jung, M. F., Kohn, S., Shaw, T. H., Pak, R., & Neerincx, M. A. (2020) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-019-00596-x · Cited by 447
From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: the importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction
de Visser, E. J., Pak, R., & Shaw, T. H. (2018) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2018.1457725 · Cited by 450
The Role of Trust in Human-Robot Interaction
Lewis, M., Sycara, K. P., & Walker, P. M. (2018) · Studies in systems, decision and control · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64816-3_8 · Cited by 307
How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence
Zerilli, J., Bhatt, U., & Weller, A. (2022) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2022.100455 · Cited by 257
Metadata
- Authors
- Robinette, P., Howard, A. M., & Wagner, A. R.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Georgia Tech Research Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Robinette, Paul
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2015
- Pages
- 574-583
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W2398251251
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 8.21
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- trust in robots, trust repair, human-robot interaction, virtual worlds
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
