The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modeling and Predicting Trust Dynamics in Human–Robot Teaming: A Bayesian Inference Approach
Abstract
Trust in automation, or more recently trust in autonomy, has received extensive research attention in the past three decades. The majority of prior literature adopted a “snapshot” view of trust and typically evaluated trust through questionnaires administered at the end of an experiment. This “snapshot” view, however, does not acknowledge that trust is a dynamic variable that can strengthen or decay over time. To fill the research gap, the present study aims to model trust dynamics when a human interacts with a robotic agent over time. The underlying premise of the study is that by interacting with a robotic agent and observing its performance over time, a rational human agent will update his/her trust in the robotic agent accordingly. Based on this premise, we develop a personalized trust prediction model and learn its parameters using Bayesian inference. Our proposed model adheres to three properties of trust dynamics characterizing human agents’ trust development process de facto and thus guarantees high model explicability and generalizability. We tested the proposed method using an existing dataset involving 39 human participants interacting with four drones in a simulated surveillance mission. The proposed method obtained a root mean square error of 0.072, significantly outperforming existing prediction methods. Moreover, we identified three distinct types of trust dynamics, the Bayesian decision maker, the oscillator, and the disbeliever, respectively. This prediction model can be used for the design of individualized and adaptive technologies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Trust is dynamic and can increase or decrease during interactions.
“Trust is dynamic and can increase or decrease during interactions (Y.Guo & Yang, 2021;Glikson & Woolley, 2020;R. R. Hoffman et al., 2009).”
From Trust, distrust, and appropriate reliance in (X)AI: A conceptual clarification of user trust and survey of its empirical evaluation (2025) · cites this paper as Y.Guo & Yang, 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
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×
“search attention in the past three decades. The diverse interest has generated multiple denitions of trust as a belief, attitude, and behavior [6]. In this paper, we use the denition by Lee and See [8]: Trust is the \attitude that an agent will help achieve an individual’s goals in situations characterized by uncertai…”
MethodTrust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust
Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720814547570 · Cited by 2,817
A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720811417254 · Cited by 2,051
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
Manzey, D., Reichenbach, J., & Onnasch, L. (2012) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343411433844 · Cited by 277
Impact of robot failures and feedback on real-time trust
Desai, M., Kaniarasu, P., Medvedev, M., Steinfeld, A., & Yanco, H. (2013) · 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1109/hri.2013.6483596 · Cited by 234
Evaluating Effects of User Experience and System Transparency on Trust in Automation
Yang, X. J., Unhelkar, V. V., Li, K., & Shah, J. A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/2909824.3020230 · Cited by 208
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- Murphy RR (2004) Human–robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, Cybern, Part C (Appl Rev) 34(2):138–153 · DOI
- Unhelkar VV, Siu HC, Shah JA (2014) Comparative performance of human and mobile robotic assistants in collaborative fetch-and-deliver tasks. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’14). ACM, pp 82–89 · DOI
- Rantanen P, Parkkari T, Leikola S, Airaksinen M, Lyles A (2017) An in-home advanced robotic system to manage elderly home-care patients’ medications: a pilot safety and usability study. Clin Ther 39(5):1054–1061 · DOI
- Du N, Huang KY, Yang XJ (2020) 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. Hum Factors 62(6):987–1001 · DOI
- Lewis M, Sycara K, Walker P (2018) The role of trust in human–robot interaction. Springer, Cham, pp 135–159
- de Visser EJ, Peeters MM, Jung MF, Kohn S, Shaw TH, Pak R, Neerincx MA (2020) Towards a theory of longitudinal trust calibration in human–robot teams. Int J Soc Robot 12(2):459–478 · DOI · Paper page
- Rossi A, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML (2017) How the timing and magnitude of robot errors influence peoples’ trust of robots in an emergency scenario. In: Kheddar A et al (eds) Social Robotics. ICSR 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10652. Springer, Cham
- Schaefer KE, Billings DR, Szalma JL, Adams JK, Sanders TL, Chen JY, Hancock PA (2014) A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: implications for human–robot interaction. Tech rep, Army Research Laboratory · DOI
- Merritt SM, Heimbaugh H, Lachapell J, Lee D (2013) I trust it, but i don’t know why: effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Hum Factors 55(3):520–534 · DOI
- Ullman D, Malle BF (2017) Human–robot trust: just a button press away. In: Proceedings of the companion of the 12th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’17). ACM, pp 309–310 · DOI
- Hu WL, Akash K, Jain N, Reid T (2016) Real-time sensing of trust in human-machine interactions. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(32):48–53 · DOI
- Lee J, Moray N (1992) Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35(10):1243–1270 · DOI · Paper page
- Lu Y (2020) Detecting and overcoming trust miscalibration in real time using an eye-tracking based technique. PhD thesis, University of Michigan
- Lu Y, Sarter N (2019) Eye tracking: a process-oriented method for inferring trust in automation as a function of priming and system reliability. IEEE Trans Hum-Mach Syst 49(6):560–568 · DOI
- Xu A, Dudek G (2015) Optimo: online probabilistic trust inference model for asymmetric human–robot collaborations. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’15). ACM Press, pp 221–228 · DOI
- Yang XJ, Wickens CD, Hölttä-Otto K (2016) How users adjust trust in automation: contrast effect and hindsight bias. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet 60:196–200 · DOI
- Ezer N, Fisk AD, Rogers WA (2008) Age-related differences in reliance behavior attributable to costs within a human-decision aid system. Hum Factors 50(6):853–863 · DOI
- McBride SE, Rogers WA, Fisk AD (2011) Understanding the effect of workload on automation use for younger and older adults. Hum Factors 53(6):672–686 · DOI
- Rau PP, Li Y, Li D (2009) Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Comput Hum Behav 25(2):587–595 · DOI · Paper page
- Salem M, Lakatos G, Amirabdollahian F, Dautenhahn K (2015) Would you trust a (faulty) robot?: effects of error, task type and personality on human–robot cooperation and trust. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’15). IEEE, pp 141–148 · DOI · Paper page
- Wickens CD, Rice S, Keller D, Hutchins S, Hughes J, Clayton K (2009) False alerts in air traffic control conflict alerting system: is there a “cry wolf” effect? Hum Factors 51(4):446–462 · DOI
- Rau PLP, Li Y, Liu J (2013) Effects of a social robot’s autonomy and group orientation on human decision-making. Adv Hum-Comput Interact 2013:263721 · DOI
- Schneider S, Kummert F (2020) Comparing robot and human guided personalization: adaptive exercise robots are perceived as more competent and trustworthy. Int J Soc Robot 1–17 · DOI
- Wang N, Pynadath DV, Hill SG (2016) Trust calibration within a human–robot team: comparing automatically generated explanations. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’16). IEEE, pp 109–116 · DOI · Paper page
- Bainbridge WA, Hart JW, Kim ES, Scassellati B (2011) The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int J Soc Robot 3(1):41–52 · DOI
- Martelaro N, Nneji VC, Ju W, Hinds P (2016) Tell me more: designing hri to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship. In: The 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’16). IEEE, pp 181–188 · DOI
- Waytz A, Heafner J, Epley N (2014) The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J Exp Soc Psychol 52:113–117 · DOI · Paper page
- Zhang MY, Yang XJ (2017) Evaluating effects of workload on trust in automation, attention allocation and dual-task performance. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet 61(1):1799–1803 · DOI
- Tanner WP, Swets JA (1954) A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychol Rev 61(6):401–409 · DOI
- Neil AM, Douglas C (2005) Detection theory: a user’s guide, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
- Lloyd SP (1982) Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 28(2):129–137 · DOI · Paper page
- Thorndike RL (1953) Who belongs in the family? Psychometrika 18(4):267–276 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Yang, X. J., Schemanske, C., & Searle, C. (2023) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208211034716 · Cited by 132
“Based on the three properties, a computational model for predicting the moment-to-moment trust was developed (Guo, Shi, & Yang, 2021; Guo & Yang, 2020; Yang et al., To appear).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationVisser, R., Peters, T. M., Scharlau, I., & Hammer, B. (2025) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2025.101357 · Cited by 58
Trust Dynamics and Verbal Assurances in Human Robot Physical Collaboration
Alhaji, B., Prilla, M., & Rausch, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2021.703504 · Cited by 29
Kim, J. Y., Lester, C., & Yang, X. J. (2025) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208251326795 · Cited by 21
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Guo, Y., & Yang, X. J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Social Robotics
- Published
- 2020-10-04
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1899-1909
- ISSN
- 1875-4791
- 1875-4805
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 7
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Army Research Laboratory (W911NF-20-2-0087)
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