Analysis of reactions towards failures and recovery strategies for autonomous robots
Abstract
Human-robot interaction involving the failure of autonomous robots is not yet well understood. We conducted two online surveys with a total of 1200 participants in which people assessed situations where an autonomous robot experienced different kinds of failure. This information was used to construct a measurement scale of people's reaction to failure where positive values correspond with increasingly positive reactions and negative values with negative reactions. We then used this scale to compare different kinds of failure situations, including the severity of the failures, the context risk involved, and the effectiveness of different kinds of recovery strategies. We found evidence that the effectiveness of recovery strategies depends on the task, context, and severity of failure.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Brooks et al. argued that human support and task support can mitigate negative effects of failure, and that combining them should minimize problems without negative side effects.
“Brooks et al. (2016) argued that providing human support (providing information that supports or improves the user's situation awareness with respect to the failure and the status of the task being performed) or task support (helping the user complete the task they wanted to accomplish) will mitigate negative effects caused by failure; and that combining the two techniques should minimize problems without negative side effects.”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Brooks et al. (2016)
Recovery strategies which reduce the negative effects of a failure will also increase the likelihood of users wanting to use the system again.
“recovery strategies which reduce the negative effects of a failure will also increase the likelihood of users wanting to use the system again.”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Brooks et al. (2016)
Providing human support or task support will mitigate negative effects caused by failure, and combining the two techniques should minimize problems without negative side effects.
“providing human support (providing information that supports or improves the user's situation awareness with respect to the failure and the status of the task being performed) or task support (helping the user complete the task they wanted to accomplish) will mitigate negative effects caused by failure; and that combining the two techniques should minimize problems without negative side effects.”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Brooks et al. (2016)
In Brooks et al. (2016), human support was better correlated to whether the information conveyed could be used by the person to affect the outcome of the situation.
“human support was better correlated to whether the information conveyed could be used by the person to affect the outcome of the situation.”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Brooks et al. (2016)
Recovery strategies that reduced the negative effects of a failure were shown to increase the likelihood of users to want to use the system again.
“Recovery strategies that reduced the negative effects of a failure were shown to increase the likelihood of users to want to use the system again.”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Brooks et al. (2016)
In Brooks et al. (2016), task support, as well as a combination of task support and human support, significantly improved people's reaction to failure in all but one scenario.
“Task support, as well as a combination of task support and human support, significantly improved people's reaction to failure in all but one scenario.”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as Brooks et al. (2016)
Brooks et al. explored reactions to failures in autonomous robots by manipulating context risk, failure severity, task support, and human support.
“In an online survey, Brooks et al. [7] explored people's reactions to failures in autonomous robots, namely a vacuum cleaner and a self-driving taxi, by manipulating four variables: context risk, failure severity, task support and human support.”
From Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies (2020) · cites this paper as [7]
Participants' perceptions of an erroneous robot became less negative when it deployed a mitigation strategy, either task support, human support, or both.
“Participants' perceptions of an erroneous robot became less negative when it deployed a mitigation strategy, either by prompting task support, human support or both.”
From Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies (2020) · cites this paper as [7]
The authors reported a non-significant tendency for a preference for both task and human support in high-severity situations and only task support in low-severity situations.
“However, the authors reported an interesting but non-significant tendency showing a preference for both task and human support in high severity situations, and a preference for only task support in low severity situations.”
From Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies (2020) · cites this paper as [7]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 46
- Authors
- Brooks, D. J., Begum, M., & Yanco, H. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Lowell (US)
- Venue
- 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2016-08
- Pages
- 487-492
- ISSN
- 1944-9437 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2554915684
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 6.75
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE RO-MAN (publishedVersion)
- 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
- human-robot interaction, autonomous robots, robot failure, failure severity, recovery strategies, risk perception, online surveys
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
