Cited by 98Social Robot Interaction and HRIHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyAI in Service Interactions

Three Strikes and you are out!: The impacts of multiple human–robot trust violations and repairs on robot trustworthiness

Open access
Esterwood, Connor, Jr, Lionel P. Robert·2023·Computers in Human Behavior

Abstract

Robots like human co-workers can make mistakes violating a human’s trust in them. When mistakes happen, humans can see robots as less trustworthy which ultimately decreases their trust in them. Trust repair strategies can be employed to mitigate the negative impacts of these trust violations. Yet, it is not clear whether such strategies can fully repair trust nor how effective they are after repeated trust violations. To address these shortcomings, this study examined the impact of four distinct trust repair strategies: apologies, denials, explanations, and promises on overall trustworthiness and its sub-dimensions: ability, benevolence, and integrity after repeated trust violations. To accomplish this, a between-subjects experiment was conducted where participants worked with a robot co-worker to accomplish a task. The robot violated the participant’s trust and then provided a particular repair strategy. Results indicated that after repeated trust violations, none of the repair strategies ever fully repaired trustworthiness and two of its sub-dimensions: ability and integrity. In addition, after repeated interactions, apologies, explanations, and promises appeared to function similarly to one another, while denials were consistently the least effective at repairing trustworthiness and its sub-dimensions. In sum, this paper contributes to the literature on human–robot trust repair through both of these original findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107658

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Esterwood, C., & Jr, L. P. R.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Esterwood, Connor
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-05
Volume
142
Pages
107658
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4317468071
Cited by
98
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12
FWCI
29.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Michigan Library
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
trust in robots, trust repair, breach of trust, apology, denial, explanation, promise, ability, benevolence, integrity

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