The theory of mind and human-robot trust repair

Nothing is perfect and robots can make as many mistakes as any human, which can lead to a decrease in trust in them. However, it is possible, for robots to repair a human's trust in them after they have made mistakes through various trust repair strategies such as apologies, denials, and promises. Presently, the efficacy of these trust repairs in the human-robot interaction literature has been mixed. One reason for this might be that humans have different perceptions of a robot's mind. For example, some repairs may be more effective when humans believe that robots are capable of experiencing emotion. Likewise, other repairs might be more effective when humans believe robots possess intentionality. A key element that determines these beliefs is mind perception. Therefore understanding how mind perception impacts trust repair may be vital to understanding trust repair in human-robot interaction. To investigate this, we conducted a study involving 400 participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk to determine whether mind perception influenced the effectiveness of three distinct repair strategies. The study employed an online platform where the robot and participant worked in a warehouse to pick and load 10 boxes. The robot made three mistakes over the course of the task and employed either a promise, denial, or apology after each mistake. Participants then rated their trust in the robot before and after it made the mistake. Results of this study indicated that overall, individual differences in mind perception are vital considerations when seeking to implement effective apologies and denials between humans and robots.

Mental State Attribution to Robots: A Systematic Review of Conceptions, Methods, and Findings

The topic of mental state attribution to robots has been approached by researchers from a variety of disciplines, including psychology, neuroscience, computer science, and philosophy. As a consequence, the empirical studies that have been conducted so far exhibit considerable diversity in terms of how the phenomenon is described and how it is approached from a theoretical and methodological standpoint. This literature review addresses the need for a shared scientific understanding of mental state attribution to robots by systematically and comprehensively collating conceptions, methods, and findings from 155 empirical studies across multiple disciplines. The findings of the review include that: (1) the terminology used to describe mental state attribution to robots is diverse but largely homogenous in usage; (2) the tendency to attribute mental states to robots is determined by factors such as the age and motivation of the human as well as the behavior, appearance, and identity of the robot; (3) there is a computer < robot < human pattern in the tendency to attribute mental states that appears to be moderated by the presence of socially interactive behavior; (4) there are conflicting findings in the empirical literature that stem from different sources of evidence, including self-report and non-verbal behavioral or neurological data. The review contributes toward more cumulative research on the topic and opens up for a transdisciplinary discussion about the nature of the phenomenon and what types of research methods are appropriate for investigation.

From 'automation' to 'autonomy': the importance of trust repair in human-machine interaction

Modern interactions with technology are increasingly moving away from simple human use of computers as tools to the establishment of human relationships with autonomous entities that carry out actions on our behalf. In a recent commentary, Peter Hancock issued a stark warning to the field of human factors that attention must be focused on the appropriate design of a new class of technology: highly autonomous systems. In this article, we heed the warning and propose a human-centred approach directly aimed at ensuring that future human-autonomy interactions remain focused on the user's needs and preferences. By adapting literature from industrial psychology, we propose a framework to infuse a unique human-like ability, building and actively repairing trust, into autonomous systems. We conclude by proposing a model to guide the design of future autonomy and a research agenda to explore current challenges in repairing trust between humans and autonomous systems. Practitioner Summary: This paper is a call to practitioners to re-cast our connection to technology as akin to a relationship between two humans rather than between a human and their tools. To that end, designing autonomy with trust repair abilities will ensure future technology maintains and repairs relationships with their human partners.