CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 173

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Whose Job Is It Anyway? A Study of Human-Robot Interaction in a Collaborative Task

Hinds, Pamela, Roberts, Teresa, Jones, Hank·2004·Human-Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The use of autonomous, mobile professional service robots in diverse workplaces is expected to grow substantially over the next decade. These robots often will work side by side with people, collaborating with employees on tasks. Some roboticists have argued that, in these cases, people will collaborate more naturally and easily with humanoid robots as compared with machine-like robots. It is also speculated that people will rely on and share responsibility more readily with robots that are in a position of authority. This study sought to clarify the effects of robot appearance and relative status on human-robot collaboration by investigating the extent to which people relied on and ceded responsibility to a robot coworker. In this study, a 3 × 3 experiment was conducted with human likeness (human, human-like robot, and machine-like robot) and status (subordinate, peer, and supervisor) as dimensions. As far as we know, this study is one of the first experiments examining how people respond to robotic coworkers. As such, this study attempts to design a robust and transferable sorting and assembly task that capitalizes on the types of tasks robots are expected to do and is embedded in a realistic scenario in which the participant and confederate are interdependent. The results show that participants retained more responsibility for the successful completion of the task when working with a machine-like as compared with a humanoid robot, especially when the machine-like robot was…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_7

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Ambrose, R. O., Askew S. R., Bluethmann, W. & Diftler, M. A. (2001). Humanoids designed to do work. Proceedings of the IEEE 2001 International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Robotics and Automation Society. Tokyo, Japan.
  2. Bowers, C. A., Oser, R. L, Salas, E. & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Team performance in automated systems. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 243-265). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  3. Breazeal, C. (1999). Robot in society: Friend or appliance? Proceedings of the Agents 99 Workshop on Emotion-Based Agent Architectures. Seattle, Washington.
  4. Breazeal, C. & Scassellati, B. (1999). How to build robots that make friends and influence people. Paper presented at the 1999 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS-99), Kyonjiu, Korea. · DOI
  5. 10.1145/504729.504751 · DOI
  6. Burke, J. L., Murphy, R. R., Coovert, M. D. & Riddle, D. L. (2004). Moonlight in Miami: A field study of human-robot interaction in the context of an urban search and rescue disaster response training exercise. Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 85-116. [this special issue] · DOI
  7. Dautenhahn, K. (1999). Robots as social actors: AURORA and the case of autism. Proceedings of the Third International Cognitive Technology Conference. San Francisco, CA.
  8. DiSalvo, C. F., Gemperle, F., Forlizzi, J. & Kiesler, S. (2002). All robots are not created equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads. Proceedings of the DIS 2002 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. New York: ACM. · DOI
  9. 10.1037//0022-3514.59.4.809 · DOI
  10. 10.1037//0022-3514.62.3.378 · DOI
  11. Goetz, J., Kiesler, S. & Powers, A. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. RO-MAN 2003. San Francisco, CA. · DOI
  12. Goodnow, J. J. (1996). Collaborative rules: From shares of the work to rights to the story. In P. Baltes & U. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds (pp. 163-193). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Grabowski M., 1997, California Management Review, 39, 152, 10.2307/41165914 · DOI
  14. 10.1037//0096-3445.116.1.26 · DOI
  15. Jensen, C., Farnham, S. D., Drucker, S. M. & Kollock, P. (2000). The effect of communication modality on cooperation in online environments. Proceedings of the CHI 2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM. · DOI
  16. Kiesler, S. & Goetz, J. (2002). Mental models of robotic assistants. Proceedings of the CHI 2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM. · DOI
  17. Nass, C., Fogg, B. J. & Moon, Y. (1996). Can computers be teammates? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 669-678. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Parise, S., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L. & Waters, K. (1996). My partner is a real dog: Cooperation with social agents. Proceedings of the CSCW 96 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM. · DOI
  19. 10.1207/15324839851036651 · DOI
  20. Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996) The media equation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Reichard, J. (1978). Robots: Fact, fiction, and prediction. New York: Penguin.
  22. Roberts K. H., 1994, Management Science, 40, 614, 10.1287/mnsc.40.5.614 · DOI
  23. 10.1037//0022-3514.50.4.684 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01506-0 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  26. Sparaco P., 1994, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 141, 20
  27. Squeo, A. (2001, December 13). Meet the newest recruits: Robots. The Wall Street Journal, p. B01.
  28. Steuer, J. (1995). Vividness and source of evaluation as determinants of social responses toward mediated representations of agency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, California.
  29. Strodtbeck F. L., 1957, American Journal of Sociology, 22, 713, 10.2307/2089202 · DOI
  30. Swim J. K., 1996, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 507, 10.1177/0146167296225008 · DOI
  31. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 297-332). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
  32. Thrun, S. (2004). Toward a framework for human-robot interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 9-24. [this special issue] · DOI
  33. 10.1037//0021-9010.77.3.353 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 173

Metadata

Authors
Hinds, P., Roberts, T., & Jones, H.
Venue
Human-Computer Interaction
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2004-06-01
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
151-181
ISSN
0737-0024
DOI
10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_7
Cited by
173
References
5
Language
en

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Whose Job Is It Anyway? A Study of Human-Robot Interaction in a Collaborative Task. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_7
The paper
Hinds, P., Roberts, T., & Jones, H. (2004). Whose Job Is It Anyway? A Study of Human-Robot Interaction in a Collaborative Task. Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901%262_7