Can I Trust You? A User Study of Robot Mediation of a Support Group

Birmingham, Chris; Hu, Zijian; Mahajan, Kartik; Reber, Eli; Matarić, Maja J.

doi:10.1109/icra40945.2020.9196875

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, it is common to employ different types of trustees to compensate for low trust in other trustees, such as when various technologies are employed to monitor and assist humans (e.g., cars alert drivers to dangers in their blind spots). Thus, our contribution extends other research examining trust in multiple trustees whereby one is a person and the other is a type of technology such as a robot (Birmingham et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…Pertaining to theoretical advancement, the PI model addresses calls to expand the investigation of trust beyond dyadic trust to situations involving more than two actors (e.g., Dirks & de Jong, 2022). The model contributes to a nascent, but burgeoning, interdisciplinary literature moving beyond the single trustor-trustee dyad and exploring the more complicated dynamics involved when one trustor is simultaneously relying upon multiple trustees (e.g., Birmingham et al, 2020; Cho et al, 2014; Lu et al, 2010). The PI model does this, first, by focusing on the emergence of multi-trustee trust, aggregate trust in multiple distinct individual trustees.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Perceived Influence Model of Trust: Toward a Multi-Trustee Theory

PytlikZillig,

Votruba,

Fleig-Palmer

et al. 2024

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research investigating situations involving one trustor and multiple trustees often examines how a trustor’s trust in one party affects their amount of trust in another party. This paper fills a gap by predicting the effects of trust. The Perceived Influence (PI) Model of Trust is an individual-level model focused on the perceptions of a trustor. It builds upon the Mayer et al. (1995) model by integrating insights from literature on task interdependence and expanding to two trustees. The PI model describes and explains three possibilities for how a trustor’s trust in two trustees may combine to form a sense of aggregate multi-trustee trust via: (1) additive effects, such that the trustor’s trust in each of the trustees has independent effects on the aggregate; (2) compulsory effects, such that increasing the amount of trust in one trustee increases the effect of trust in the other trustee; and (3) compensatory effects, such that increasing trust in one trustee decreases the effect of trust in the other trustee. We propose that the theoretical mechanism explaining which of these three possibilities takes place is the trustor’s perceived influence of the trustees, which is tightly linked to perceptions of task requirements necessary to attenuate the trustor’s risk. The PI model begins to fill an important gap in the literature pertaining to pervasive, but rarely considered, multi-trustee situations, and proposes the importance of trustor perceptions of trustee influence and task requirements for future models of trust.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Perceived Influence Model of Trust: Toward a Multi-Trustee Theory

PytlikZillig,

Votruba,

Fleig-Palmer

et al. 2024

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been shown that a bystander android robot that nodded its head relaxed the communication between a doctor and a patient in an examination room [19]. Birmingham et al showed that a robot can improve trust within groups of university students by asking one member questions in front of the group and encouraging the member to disclose [20]. Traeger et al showed that groups with a robot making vulnerable statements have more conversation and the members speak more equally [21].…”

Section: A Conversational Robots To Ease Barriers In Verbal Communica...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the low-confidence participants rated m-RMDS condition more positively in terms of being able to hear frank opinions of others, and this suggests that they are likely to regard responses to robots' questions as the frank opinions of other participants. Birmingham et al have shown that when each group member responds to a question from a robot, trust within the group increases [20]. Utterances prompted by a robot in front of the group might make the speaker seem more honest and as a result recognized as trustworthy by the other participants.…”

Section: A Participants With Low Self-confidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple-Robot Mediated Discussion System to support group discussion

Ikari

Yoshikawa

Ishiguro

2020

2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deep discussions on topics without definite answers are important for society, but they are also challenging to facilitate. Recently, advances in the technology of using robots to facilitate discussions have been made. In this study, we developed a multiple-robot mediated discussion system (m-RMDS) to support discussions by having multiple robots assert their own points and lead a dialogue in a group of human participants. The robots involved the participants in a discussion through asking them for advice. We implemented the m-RMDS in discussions on difficult topics with no clear answers. A within-subject experiment with 16 groups (N=64) was conducted to evaluate the contribution of the m-RMDS. The participants completed a questionnaire about their discussion skills and their self-confidence. Then, they participated in two discussions, one facilitated by the m-RMDS and one that was unfacilitated. They evaluated and compared both experiences across multiple aspects. The participants with low confidence in conducting a discussion evaluated the discussion with m-RMDS as easier to move forward than the discussion without m-RMDS. Furthermore, they reported that they heard more of others' frank opinions during the facilitated discussion than during the unfacilitated one. In addition, regardless of their confidence level, the participants tended to respond that they would like to use the system again. We also review necessary improvements to the system and suggest future applications.

show abstract

“…In contrast, when their perceptions exceed their expectations, they would get interested in the agent and do believe the agents' outputs." In another study on Nao presented in [40] in order to cope with expectations, users proposed that the robot should state from the beginning "its purpose was solely to mediate and that it would not answer questions." Finally as "people's expectations are calibrated by the robot's demonstrated behavior, the affordances and impressions first gained from the embodiment become less important" [18].…”

Section: Appearance Tasks and Rolesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discovery Report Following 5 Years of Research Project on Socially Assistive Robotics

Ocnarescu

Cossin

2020

Curr Robot Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review This study contributes to the field of socially assistive robotics (SAR). We focus our research on the perception and projections of SAR and the interconnections between their tasks, roles, appearances, and behaviors. We explore how humanoid and non-humanoid appearance and behavior influence people's expectations and roles they give to robots. We also tackle broader questions related to projections, identification, and interpretations of SAR in everyday life. Recent Findings Regarding robots' roles, first studies on the "robotic etiquette" showed that older population saw companion robots as butlers, disabled people see robots as assistants, and only young participants gave roles as being a friend. Even if SAR has as main goal the rehabilitation or medical care, the devices built in this field will also enter people's homes. Based on appearance and intention scenarios of human-robot experiences, design researchers propose opportunities of projection and discussions and push the human-robot interaction (HRI) community to taking into consideration the more subtle and unspoken needs, values, and expectations on social robots. A larger perspective should be considered in order to deeply understand how to well-design SAR for people and society. Summary This report presents the results of qualitative and quantitative experimentations in a 5-year research project on socially assistive robotics-Romeo consortium. We conducted a mixed study on 72 participants on the perception, projection, and identification of three robot representations (2 humanoid and one non-humanoid). Results show strong correlations between the appearance, behavior, and roles of the robot representations.

show abstract

Can I Trust You? A User Study of Robot Mediation of a Support Group

Cited by 19 publications

References 31 publications

The Perceived Influence Model of Trust: Toward a Multi-Trustee Theory

The Perceived Influence Model of Trust: Toward a Multi-Trustee Theory

Multiple-Robot Mediated Discussion System to support group discussion

Discovery Report Following 5 Years of Research Project on Socially Assistive Robotics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About