nach oben

International Journal of Social Robotics

Erschienen in:

24.03.2021

Investigating Trust in Interaction with Inconsistent Embodied Virtual Agents

verfasst von: Reza Moradinezhad, Erin T. Solovey

Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics | Ausgabe 8/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Embodied Virtual Agents (EVAs) are used today as interfaces for social robots, educational tutors, game counterparts, medical assistants, as well as companions for the elderly and individuals with psychological or behavioral conditions. Forming a reliable and trustworthy interaction is critical to the success and acceptability of this new form of interaction. In this paper, we report on a study investigating how trust is influenced by the cooperativeness of an EVA as well as an individuals prior experience with other agents. Participants answered two sets of multiple choice questions, working with a different agent in each set. Two types of agent behaviors were possible: Cooperative and Uncooperative. In addition to participants achieving significantly higher performance and having higher trust for the cooperative agent, we found that participants’ trust for the cooperative agent was significantly higher if they interacted with an uncooperative agent in one of the sets, compared to working with cooperative agents in both sets. Furthermore, we found that participants may still decide to choose agent’s suggested answer (which can be incorrect) over theirs, even if they are fairly certain their own answer is the correct one. The results suggest that trust for an EVA is relative and it is dependent on user’s history of interaction with different agents in addition to current agent’s behavior. The findings provide insight into important considerations for creating trustworthy EVAs.

Vorheriger Artikel Do I Have a Personality? Endowing Care Robots with Context-Dependent Personality Traits

Nächster Artikel Empathetic Speech Synthesis and Testing for Healthcare Robots

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

A video showing the interface and all six facial expressions on both agents is included as supplemental material.

(2006 (accessed February 3, 2018)) FreshWorld.com. https://placement.freshersworld.com

(2009 (accessed February 3, 2018)) QuizArea.com. http://www.pubquizarea.com

Berscheid E, Reis HT (1998) Attraction and close relationships. McGraw-Hill, New York

Bickmore T, Cassell J (2001) Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 396–403

Burgoon JK, Guerrero LK, Floyd K (2016) Nonverbal communication. Routledge, LondonCrossRef

Butler JK Jr, Cantrell RS (1984) A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychol Rep 55(1):19–28CrossRef

Cassell J, Bickmore T (2000) External manifestations of trustworthiness in the interface. Commun ACM 43(12):50–56CrossRef

Cassell J, Vilhjálmsson HH, Bickmore T (2001) Beat: the behavior expression animation toolkit. In Proceedings of the 28th annual Conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques (SIGGRAPH ’01). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1145/383259.383315

Chen JY, Barnes MJ (2012) Supervisory control of multiple robots: effects of imperfect automation and individual differences. Hum Factors 54(2):157–174CrossRef

10.

Desai M, Kaniarasu P, Medvedev M, Steinfeld A, Yanco H (2013) Impact of robot failures and feedback on real-time trust. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, IEEE Press, pp 251–258

11.

DeVault D, Artstein R, Benn G, Dey T, Fast E, Gainer A, Georgila K, Gratch J, Hartholt A, Lhommet M, et al (2014) Simsensei kiosk: A virtual human interviewer for healthcare decision support. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp 1061–1068

12.

de Visser EJ, Krueger F, McKnight P, Scheid S, Smith M, Chalk S, Parasuraman R (2012) The world is not enough: trust in cognitive agents. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 56:263–267CrossRef

13.

Doney PM, Cannon JP (1997) An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. J Mark 61:35–51

14.

Dzindolet MT, Peterson SA, Pomranky RA, Pierce LG, Beck HP (2003) The role of trust in automation reliance. Int J Human-Computer Stud 58(6):697–718CrossRef

15.

Ekman P (2009) Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage (revised edition). WW Norton & Company, New York

16.

Elkins AC, Derrick DC (2013) The sound of trust: voice as a measurement of trust during interactions with embodied conversational agents. Group Decis Negot 22(5):897–913CrossRef

17.

Fox JE, Boehm-Davis DA (1998) Effects of age and congestion information accuracy of advanced traveler information systems on user trust and compliance. Transp Res Rec 1621(1):43–49CrossRef

18.

Friesen E, Ekman P (1978) Facial action coding system: a technique for the measurement of facial movement. Palo Alto 3:5

19.

Ghazali AS, Ham J, Barakova EI, Markopoulos P (2018) Effects of robot facial characteristics and gender in persuasive human-robot interaction. Front Robot AI 5:73CrossRef

20.

Gombolay M, Yang XJ, Hayes B, Seo N, Liu Z, Wadhwania S, Yu T, Shah N, Golen T, Shah J (2018) Robotic assistance in the coordination of patient care. Int J Robot Res 37(10):1300–1316CrossRef

21.

Gruber D (2018) The effects of mid-range visual anthropomorphism on human trust and performance using a navigation-based automated decision aid

22.

Heerink M, Krose B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2009) Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. In: RO-MAN 2009-The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, IEEE, pp 528–533

23.

Hyde J, Carter EJ, Kiesler S, Hodgins JK (2016) Evaluating animated characters: facial motion magnitude influences personality perceptions. ACM Trans Appl Percept (TAP) 13(2):8

24.

Jian JY, Bisantz AM, Drury CG (2000) Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. Int J Cognit Ergon 4(1):53–71CrossRef

25.

Kang SH, Gratch J (2012) Socially anxious people reveal more personal information with virtual counselors that talk about themselves using intimate human back stories. Annu Rev Cybertherapy Telemed 181:202–207

26.

Kantowitz BH, Hanowski RJ, Kantowitz SC (1997) Driver acceptance of unreliable traffic information in familiar and unfamiliar settings. Hum Factors 39(2):164–176CrossRef

27.

Kim PH, Ferrin DL, Cooper CD, Dirks KT (2004) Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus integrity-based trust violations. J Appl Psychol 89(1):104CrossRef

28.

Lee J, Moray N (1992) Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35(10):1243–1270CrossRef

29.

Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46(1):50–80MathSciNetCrossRef

30.

Lisetti C, Amini R, Yasavur U, Rishe N (2013) I can help you change! an empathic virtual agent delivers behavior change health interventions. ACM Trans Manag Inf Syst (TMIS) 4(4):19

31.

Lucas GM, Gratch J, King A, Morency LP (2014) It’s only a computer: virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Comput Hum Behav 37:94–100CrossRef

32.

Madhavan P, Wiegmann DA, Lacson FC (2006) Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Hum Factors 48(2):241–256CrossRef

33.

Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):709–734CrossRef

34.

Moradinezhad R, Solovey E (2018) Assessing human reaction to a virtual agents facial feedback in a simple q&a setting. In: Front. Hum. Neurosci. Conference Abstract: 2nd international neuroergonomics conference. https://doi.org/10.3389/conf. fnhum, vol 11

35.

Muir BM (1994) Trust in automation: part i. theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics 37(11):1905–1922CrossRef

36.

Muir BM, Moray N (1996) Trust in automation. part ii. experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 39(3):429–460CrossRef

37.

Naujoks F, Kiesel A, Neukum A (2016) Cooperative warning systems: the impact of false and unnecessary alarms on drivers’ compliance. Accid Anal Prev 97:162–175CrossRef

38.

Ochs M, Pelachaud C, Sadek D (2008) An empathic virtual dialog agent to improve human-machine interaction. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems-Volume 1, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp 89–96

39.

Pak R, Fink N, Price M, Bass B, Sturre L (2012) Decision support aids with anthropomorphic characteristics influence trust and performance in younger and older adults. Ergonomics 55(9):1059–1072CrossRef

40.

Pecune F, Chen J, Matsuyama Y, Cassell J (2018) Field trial analysis of socially aware robot assistant. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 1241–1249

41.

Rehm M, André E (2005) Catch me if you can: exploring lying agents in social settings. In: Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, ACM, pp 937–944

42.

Todorov A, Baron SG, Oosterhof NN (2008) Evaluating face trustworthiness: a model based approach. Soc Cognit Affect Neurosci 3(2):119–127CrossRef

43.

Todorov A, Olivola CY, Dotsch R, Mende-Siedlecki P (2015) Social attributions from faces: determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Ann Rev Psychol 66:519–545CrossRef

44.

Van Mulken S, André E, Müller J (1999) An empirical study on the trustworthiness of life-like interface agents. In: HCI (2), pp 152–156

45.

Weisband S, Kiesler S (1996) Self disclosure on computer forms: Meta-analysis and implications. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 3–10

Titel: Investigating Trust in Interaction with Inconsistent Embodied Virtual Agents
verfasst von: Reza Moradinezhad
Erin T. Solovey
Publikationsdatum: 24.03.2021
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics / Ausgabe 8/2021
Print ISSN: 1875-4791
Elektronische ISSN: 1875-4805
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00747-z

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2021

Space Invaders: Pedestrian Proxemic Utility Functions and Trust Zones for Autonomous Vehicle Interactions

“Don’t Get Distracted!”: The Role of Social Robots’ Interaction Style on Users’ Cognitive Performance, Acceptance, and Non-Compliant Behavior

Empathetic Speech Synthesis and Testing for Healthcare Robots

A Meta-analysis on Children’s Trust in Social Robots

Improving Interactions with Healthcare Robots: A Review of Communication Behaviours in Social and Healthcare Contexts

Perceptions of Agent Loyalty with Ancillary Users

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten