The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Can robots be teammates?: Benchmarks in human–robot teams
Abstract
The team has become a popular model to organize joint human–robot behavior. Robot teammates are designed with high-levels of autonomy and well-developed coordination skills to aid humans in unpredictable environments. In this paper, we challenge the assumption that robots will succeed as teammates alongside humans. Drawing from the literature on human teams, we evaluate robots’ potential to meet the requirements of successful teammates. We argue that lacking humanlike mental models and a sense of self, robots may prove untrustworthy and will be rejected from human teams. Benchmarks for evaluating human–robot teams are included, as are guidelines for defining alternative structures for human–robot groups.
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.
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
Cited by
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
Makarius, E. E., Mukherjee, D., Fox, J. D., & Fox, A. K. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.045 · Cited by 780
Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature
O’Neill, T., McNeese, N., Barron, A., & Schelble, B. (2022) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720820960865 · Cited by 695
Building a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm
Gambino, A., Fox, J., & Ratan, R. (2020) · Human-Machine Communication · doi:10.30658/hmc.1.5 · Cited by 626
“Removing this anthropocentric bias from CASA should allow researchers a means to avert their own human-centric biases and avoid the pitfall highlighted by Groom and Nass (2007): “While trying to make robots human, researchers have sometimes overlooked what makes robots special” (p. 494).”
BackgroundAttachment and trust in artificial intelligence
Gillath, O., Ai, T., Branicky, M. S., Keshmiri, S., Davison, R. B., & Spaulding, R. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106607 · Cited by 448
Towards 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
Intelligent agent transparency in human–agent teaming for multi-UxV management
Mercado, J. E., Rupp, M. A., Chen, J. Y. C., Barnes, M. J., Barber, D., & Procci, K. (2016) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720815621206 · Cited by 403
Human-machine collaboration in managerial decision making
Haesevoets, T., De Cremer, D., Dierckx, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106730 · Cited by 280
AI as a moral crumple zone: The effects of AI-mediated communication on attribution and trust
Hohenstein, J., & Jung, M. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.106190 · Cited by 212
Trust calibration within a human-robot team: Comparing automatically generated explanations
Wang, N., Pynadath, D. V., & Hill, S. G. (2016) · 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1109/hri.2016.7451741 · Cited by 220
Robots in Groups and Teams: A Literature Review
Sebo, S., Stoll, B., Scassellati, B., & Jung, M. F. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3415247 · Cited by 158
Human–robot similarity and willingness to work with a robotic co-worker
You, S., & Robert Jr., L. P. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3171221.3171281 · Cited by 118
Social interactions and relationships with an intelligent virtual agent
Lee, S. K., Kavya, P., & Lasser, S. C. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102608 · Cited by 108
Transparency in a Human-Machine Context: Approaches for Fostering Shared Awareness/Intent
Lyons, J. B., & Havig, P. R. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07458-0_18 · Cited by 96
The Impact of Training on Human–Autonomy Team Communications and Trust Calibration
Johnson, C. J., Demir, M., McNeese, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Wolff, A. T., & Cooke, N. J. (2023) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208211047323 · Cited by 68
I'm sorry, Dave: i'm afraid i won't do that: social aspects of human-agent conflict
Takayama, L., Groom, V., & Nass, C. (2009) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1518701.1519021 · Cited by 67
Self-citationTrust 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
Operators' Experience of Trust in Manual Assembly with a Collaborative Robot
Nordqvist, M., & Lindblom, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction · doi:10.1145/3284432.3287180 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Groom, V., & Nass, C.
- Venue
- Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2007-10-16
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 483-500
- ISSN
- 1572-0373 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-0381
- OpenAlex
- W2035928776
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
