The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios
Abstract
Robots have the potential to save lives in emergency scenarios, but could have an equally disastrous effect if participants overtrust them. To explore this concept, we performed an experiment where a participant interacts with a robot in a non-emergency task to experience its behavior and then chooses whether to follow the robot's instructions in an emergency or not. Artificial smoke and fire alarms were used to add a sense of urgency. To our surprise, all 26 participants followed the robot in the emergency, despite half observing the same robot perform poorly in a navigation guidance task just minutes before. We performed additional exploratory studies investigating different failure modes. Even when the robot pointed to a dark room with no discernible exit the majority of people did not choose to safely exit the way they entered.
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
“Poor trust calibration sometimes causes serious safety issues [3, 4].”
From Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration (2020) · cites this paper as [4]
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
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 · cited 1×
“Hancock et al. performed a meta-analysis over the existing human-robot trust literature identifying 11 relevant research articles and found that, for these papers, robot performance is most strongly associated with trust [7].”
BackgroundSalem, M., Lakatos, G., Amirabdollahian, F., & Dautenhahn, K. (2015) · Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/2696454.2696497 · Cited by 494
The Benefits of Interactions with Physically Present Robots over Video-Displayed Agents
Bainbridge, W. A., Hart, J., Kim, E. S., & Scassellati, B. M. (2010) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0082-7 · Cited by 478
Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems
Parasuraman, R., & Miller, C. A. (2004) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/975817.975844 · Cited by 311
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
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-citationReport of the technical investigation of The Station nightclub fire
Grosshandler, W. L., Bryner, N. P., Madrzykowski, D. M., & Kuntz, K. (2005) · doi:10.6028/nist.ncstar.2v1 · Cited by 148
Timing Is Key for Robot Trust Repair
Robinette, P., Howard, A. M., & Wagner, A. R. (2015) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_57 · Cited by 121
Self-citationHuman behaviour in fire: the development and maturity of a scholarly study area
Bryan, J. L. (1999) · Fire and Materials · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1018(199911/12)23:6 · Cited by 60
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- safarik, 2014, An all-time record 97 buildings of 200 meters or higher completed in 2014, CTBUH Year in Review
- 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research
Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0057 · Cited by 2,921
Accessorize to a Crime: Real and Stealthy Attacks on State-of-the-Art Face Recognition
Sharif, M., Bhagavatula, S., Bauer, L., & Reiter, M. K. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/2976749.2978392 · Cited by 1,530
Vaithilingam, P., Zhang, T., & Glassman, E. L. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/3491101.3519665 · Cited by 660
Corporate digital responsibility
Lobschat, L., Mueller, B., Eggers, F., Brandimarte, L., Diefenbach, S., Kroschke, M., & Wirtz, J. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.006 · Cited by 573
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Robinette, P., Li, W., Allen, R., Howard, A. M., & Wagner, A. R.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2016-03
- Pages
- 101-108
- OpenAlex
- W4254148040
- Cited by
- 468
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 48.41
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Research Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology
- Georgia Institute of Technology
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Evacuation and Crowd Dynamics
- Keywords
- trust in robots, emergency evacuation, human-robot interaction, guidance and navigation, emergency response
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
