The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Human–robot similarity and willingness to work with a robotic co-worker
Open accessAbstract
Organizations now face a new challenge of encouraging their employees to work alongside robots. In this paper, we address this problem by investigating the impacts of human-robot similarity, trust in a robot, and the risk of physical danger on individuals' willingness to work with a robot and their willingness to work with a robot over a human co-worker. We report the results from an online experimental study involving 200 participants. Results showed that human-robot similarity promoted trust in a robot, which led to willingness to work with robots and ultimately willingness to work with a robot over a human co-worker. However, the risk of danger moderated not only the positive link between the surface-level similarity and trust in a robot, but also the link between intention to work with the robot and willingness to work with a robot over a human co-worker. We discuss several implications for the theory of human-robot interaction and design of robots.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“the perceived novelty scale (Yang and Xu, 2025; Cronbach’s α = 0.935), the perceived usefulness scale (Davis, 1989; α = 0.852), and the co-creation intention scale (You and Robert Jr, 2018; α = 0.887).”
From From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner (2025) · cites this paper as You and Robert Jr, 2018
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“the perceived novelty scale (Yang and Xu, 2025; Cronbach’s α = 0.907), the perceived usefulness scale (Davis, 1989; α = 0.717), the co-creation intention scale (You and Robert Jr, 2018; α = 0.780), and the task self-efficacy scale (Tierney and Farmer, 2002; α = 0.716).”
From From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner (2025) · cites this paper as You and Robert Jr, 2018
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.
Citations
Cites
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800313 · Cited by 13,287
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust.
Gefen, D. (2000) · Omega · doi:10.1016/s0305-0483(00)00021-9 · Cited by 3,529
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 · Cited by 2,517 · cited 1×
“in cognitive processes in general [8, 30].”
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 10×
“Human-related factors include disposition to trust, negative attitudes toward robots, and individuals’ personality [22, 29, 42, 44].”
BackgroundInfluentialFoundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems
Jian, J.-Y., Bisantz, A. M., & Drury, C. G. (2000) · International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics · doi:10.1207/s15327566ijce0401_04 · Cited by 1,799
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z · Cited by 1,739
Price, K. H., Harrison, D. A., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069328 · Cited by 1,594
An atlas of physical human–robot interaction
Santis, A. D., Siciliano, B., Luca, A. D., & Bicchi, A. (2007) · Mechanism and Machine Theory · doi:10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2007.03.003 · Cited by 825
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- D. E. Byrne . 1971. The Attraction Paradigm , Vol. 11 . Academic Press, Cambridge , MA. D. E. Byrne. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm, Vol. 11. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA.
- 10.5555/1698252.1698256 · DOI
- Harold L. Sirkin , Michael Zinser , and Justin Rose . 2015. Industries and Economies Leading the Robotics Revolution. (Sept. 23 , 2015 ). Retrieved Jan . 3, 2018 from https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/lean-manufacturing-innovation-industries-economies-leading-robotics-revolution/ Harold L. Sirkin, Michael Zinser, and Justin Rose. 2015. Industries and Economies Leading the Robotics Revolution. (Sept. 23, 2015). Retrieved Jan. 3, 2018 from https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/lean-manufacturing-innovation-industries-economies-leading-robotics-revolution/
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Machines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration
Seeber, I., Bittner, E., Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, T., de Vreede, G.-J., Elkins, A., Maier, R., Merz, A. B., Oeste-Reiß, S., Randrup, N., et al. (2020) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2019.103174 · Cited by 835
Paluch, S., Tuzovic, S., Holz, H., Kies, A., & Jörling, M. (2021) · Journal of Service Management · doi:10.1108/josm-11-2020-0406 · Cited by 135
Ahn, J., Kim, J., & Sung, Y. (2021) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/02650487.2021.1982529 · Cited by 115
Ghazali, A. S., Ham, J. R. C., Barakova, E. I., & Markopoulos, P. (2020) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-019-00611-1 · Cited by 121
Collaborating with technology-based autonomous agents
Seeber, I., Waizenegger, L., Seidel, S., Morana, S., Benbasat, I., & Lowry, P. B. (2020) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-12-2019-0503 · Cited by 127
Metadata
- Authors
- You, S., & Robert Jr., L. P.
- Affiliations
- Syracuse University (US)
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbot, MI, USA
- ORCID
- You, Sangseok
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2018-02-26
- Pages
- 251-260
- OpenAlex
- W2782247249
- Cited by
- 118
- References
- 69
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 22.77
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- trust in robots, human-robot collaboration, human-robot interaction, robot design
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
