The Influence of a Robot's Embodiment on Trust: A Longitudinal Study
Open accessAbstract
Trust, taken from the human perspective, is an essential factor that determines the use of robots as companions or care robots, especially given the long-term character of the interaction. This study investigated the influence of a robot's embodiment on people's trust over a prolonged period of time. The participants engaged in a collaborative task either with a physical robot or a virtual agent in 10 sessions spread over a period of 6 weeks. While our results showed that the level of trust was not influenced by the type of embodiment, time here was an important factor showing a significant increase in user's trust. Our results raise new questions on the role of the embodiment in trust and contribute to the growing research in the area of trust in human-robot interaction.
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
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?
People tend to trust embodied agents more than non-embodied agents.
“In terms of the appearance of a robot, it has been identified that people tend to trust embodied agents more than non-embodied agents [173].”
From A Taxonomy of Social Errors in Human-Robot Interaction (2021) · cites this paper as [173]
The Results report no significant difference in trust between the physical robot and the virtual agent. The Conclusion likewise says the study found no significant influence of embodiment on trust. Although the Introduction describes a hypothesis that users would trust the physical robot more, the study did not confirm it. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 7 · Cited by 24
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- RO-MAN 2007. The 16th IEEE International Symposium on, pages 564-569. IEEE, 2007.
- Authors
- van Maris, A., Lehmann, H., Natale, L., & Grzyb, B.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands
- Italian Institute of Technology (IT)
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2017-03-06
- Pages
- 313-314
- OpenAlex
- W2594769556
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 1.77
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Aisberg (University of Bergamo) (submittedVersion)
- U-PAD Unimc - Open Digital Publications (University of Macerata) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
- Keywords
- robot embodiment, physical robots, virtual agents, care robots, companion robots, long-term interaction, collaborative tasks
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
