Cited by 17Social Robot Interaction and HRIRobot Manipulation and LearningHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

Warning Signals for Poor Performance Improve Human-Robot Interaction

Open access
Van den Brule, Rik, Bijlstra, Gijsbert, Dotsch, Ron, Haselager, Pim, Wigboldus, Daniel H. J.·2016·Journal of Human-Robot Interaction

Abstract

The present research was aimed at investigating whether human-robot interaction (HRI) can be improved by a robot's nonverbal warning signals. Ideally, when a robot signals that it cannot guarantee good performance, people could take preventive actions to ensure the successful completion of the robot's task. In two experiments, participants learned either that a robot's gestures predicted subsequent poor performance, or they did not. Participants evaluated a robot that uses predictive gestures as more trustworthy, understandable, and reliable compared to a robot that uses gestures that are not predictive of their performance. Finally, participants who learned the relation between gestures and performance improved collaboration with the robot through prevention behavior immediately after a predictive gesture. This limits the negative consequences of the robot's mistakes, thus improving the 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5898/jhri.5.2.van_den_brule

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 be forgiving of robots that cannot guarantee optimal performance, so long as the robot clearly acknowledges its own limitations.

    “Fortunately, people tend to be forgiving of robots that cannot guarantee optimal performance, so long as the robot clearly acknowledges its own limitations [40].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [9]9. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicity prejudice and interractial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 62-68.
  2. [25]25. Madsen, M., & Gregor, S. (2000). Measuring human-computer trust. In Gable, G., Viatle, M. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 11 th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 6-8). Brisbane, Australia.
  3. [27]27. Moon, A., Panton, B., Van der Loos, H. F. M., & Croft, E. A. (2010). Using hesitation gestures for safe and ethical human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of ICRA (pp. 11-13). Retrieved from http://www.sites.mech.ubc.ca/~caris/Publications/Using Hesitation Gestures for Safe and Ethical Human-Robot Interaction.pdf
  4. [38]38. Schlencker, B. R., Helm, B., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1973). Interpersonal trust, promise credibility, and behavioral trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 419-427.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van den Brule, R., Bijlstra, G., Dotsch, R., Haselager, P., & Wigboldus, D. H. J.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Venue
Journal of Human-Robot Interaction
Published
2016-09-10
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
69
ISSN
2163-0364 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2519483781
Cited by
17
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Human-Robot Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
human-robot interaction, warning signs, nonverbal communication, trust in robots, robot reliability, preventive behavior, human-robot collaboration

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