Trust is a key dimension of human-robot interaction (HRI), and has often been studied in the HRI community. A common challenge arises from the difficulty of assessing trust levels in ecologically invalid environments: we present in this paper two independent laboratory studies, totalling 160 participants, where we investigate the impact of different types of errors on resulting trust, using both behavioural and subjective measures of trust. While we found a (weak) general effect of errors on reported and observed level of trust, no significant differences between the type of errors were found in either of our studies. We discuss this negative result in light of our experimental protocols, and argue for the community to move towards alternative methodologies to assess trust.

No abstract

No abstract

We investigated the effects of the deceptive behaviour of a robot, hypothesising that a lying robot would be perceived as more intelligent and human-like, but less trustworthy than a non-lying robot. The participants engaged in a collaborative task with the non-lying and lying humanoid robot NAO. Apart from subjective responses, a more objective measure of trust was provided by the trust game. Our results confirmed that the lying robot was perceived as less trustworthy. However, we have found no indication of the increased intelligence or human-like perception of the robot. Instead the robot was perceived as less friendly, kind and responsible. The results of trust game were aligned with the results obtained via subjective responses showing the potential of this indirect trust measure in the human-robot interaction studies.