Trusting Autonomous Security Robots: The Role of Reliability and Stated Social Intent

Abstract

Objective This research examined the effects of reliability and stated social intent on trust, trustworthiness, and one’s willingness to endorse use of an autonomous security robot (ASR). Background Human–robot interactions in the domain of security is plausible, yet we know very little about what drives acceptance of ASRs. Past research has used static images and game-based simulations to depict the robots versus actual humans interacting with actual robots. Method A video depicted an ASR interacting with a human. The ASR reviewed access credentials and allowed entrance once verified. If the ASR could not verify one’s credentials it instructed the visitor to return to the security checkpoint. The ASR was equipped with a nonlethal device and the robot used this device on one of the three visitors (a research confederate). Manipulations of reliability and stated social intent of the ASR were used in a 2 × 4 between subjects design ( N = 320). Results Reliability influenced trust and trustworthiness. Stated social intent influenced trustworthiness. Participants reported being more favorable toward use of the ASR in military contexts versus public contexts. Conclusion The study demonstrated that reliability of the ASR and statements regarding the ASR’s stated social intent are important considerations influencing the trust process (inclusive of intentions to be vulnerable and trustworthiness perceptions). Application If robotic systems are authorized to use force against a human, public acceptance may be increased with availability of the intent-based programming of the robot and whether or not the robot’s decision was reliable.

A transdisciplinary review and framework of consumer interactions with embodied social robots: Design, delegate, and deploy

“…Depending on social robots’ human‐like communication behavior (e.g., politeness, benevolence, voice pitch; Lee et al., 2017; Lyons et al., 2020; Zhu & Kaber, 2012) and the message content (i.e., self‐disclosure; Johanson et al., 2019), consumers engage more with the robots and find them less intimidating and more trustworthy (Lyons et al., 2020). If the robot's human‐like behavior evokes perceived intelligence and human‐likeness in consumers, it contributes to building consumer rapport and hospitality experiences (Qiu et al., 2020).…”

“…Depending on social robots' human-like communication behavior (e.g., politeness, benevolence, voice pitch; Lee et al, 2017;Lyons et al, 2020;Zhu & Kaber, 2012) and the message content (i.e., self-disclosure; Johanson et al, 2019), consumers engage more with the robots and find them less intimidating and more trustworthy (Lyons et al, 2020).…”

Do You Still Trust Me? Human-Robot Trust Repair Strategies

“…Studies examining trustworthiness in HRI have identified unique relationships for each of these elements. For example, [25] examined the impacts that a robot's reliability and social intent had on ability, benevolence and integrity. This study found reliability to significantly impact ability and integrity but not benevolence, while social intent influenced integrity and benevolence but not ability.…”

Ethics in human–AI teaming: principles and perspectives

“…A study by Panganiban and colleagues [40] demonstrated that benevolent communications from an AI in the form of an autonomous wingman reduced workload and increased perceptions of teaming. Lyons [41] also found that invoking notions of selfsacrifice versus self-protection in an autonomous security robot was effective in increasing perceptions of benevolence and integrity. In summary, while research is growing in this space and novel methods to convey complex concepts such as benevolence and integrity are being developed and tested, using these constructs within the confines of virtue ethics for AI-based systems remains a challenge because the context needs to offer an opportunity for benevolence or integrity to manifest and these constructs require deliberate design considerations.…”