You Want Me to Trust a ROBOT? The Development of a Human–Robot Interaction Trust Scale | International Journal of Social Robotics Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

You Want Me to Trust a ROBOT? The Development of a Human–Robot Interaction Trust Scale

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Trust plays a critical role when operating a robotic system in terms of both acceptance and usage. Considering trust is a multidimensional context dependent construct, the differences and common themes were examined to identify critical considerations within human–robot interaction (HRI). In order to examine the role of trust within HRI, a measurement tool was generated based on five attributes: team configuration, team processes, context, task, and system (Yagoda in Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, pp. 304–308, 2010). The HRI trust scale was developed based on two studies. The first study conducts a content validity assessment of preliminary items generated, based on a review of previous research within HRI and automation, using subject matter experts (SMEs). The second study assesses the quality of each trust scale item derived from the first study. The results were then compiled to generate the HRI trust measurement tool.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barber B (1983) The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  2. Biros D, Daly M, Gunsch G (2004) The influence of task load and automation trust on deception detection. Group Decis Negot 1983:173–189. doi:10.1023/B:GRUP.0000021840.85686.57

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Casper J, Murphy RR (2003) Human-robot interactions during the robot-assisted urban search and rescue response at the World Trade Center. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, Part B, Cybern 33(3):367–385. doi:10.1109/TSMCB.2003.811794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cook J, Wall T (1980) New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. J Occup Psychol 53:39–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Deutschi M (1960) The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Hum Relat 13(2):123–139. doi:10.1177/001872676001300202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gabarro JJ (1978) The development of trust influence and expectations. In: Athos AG, Gabarro JJ (eds) Interpersonal behavior: communication and understanding in relationships. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 230–290

    Google Scholar 

  8. Groom V, Nass C (2007) Can robots be teammates? Benchmarks in human–robot teams. Interact Stud 8(3):483–500

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JYC, de Visser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum Factors 53(5):517–527. doi:10.1177/0018720811417254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hovland CI (1953) Communication and persuasion: psychological studies of opinion change. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jennings EE (1967) The mobile manager: a study of the new generation of top executives Bureau of Industrial Relations. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kauppinen S, Brain C, Moore M (2002) European medium-term conflict detection field trials. In: Proceedings the 21st digital avionics systems conference. IEEE Press, New York, vol 1, pp 2C1-1–2C1-12. doi:10.1109/DASC.2002.1067918

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Langan-Fox J, Sankey MJ, Canty JM (2009) Human factors measurement for future air traffic control systems. Hum Factors 51(5):595–637. doi:10.1177/0018720809355278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lawshe CH (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 28(4):563–575. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46:50–80. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  17. Merritt SM, Ilgen DR (2008) Not all trust is created equal: dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Hum Factors 50(2):194–210. doi:10.1518/001872008X288574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mishra AK (1996) Organizational response to crisis: the centrality of trust. In: Tyler TR, Kramer RM (eds) Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 261–287

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Moorman C, Deshpande R, Zaltman G (1993) Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. J Mark 57(1):81–101. doi:10.2307/1252059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Muir BM (1988) Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. In: Hollnagel E, Mancini G, Woods DD (eds) Cognitive engineering in complex dynamic worlds. Academic Press, London, pp 71–83

    Google Scholar 

  21. Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum Factors 39(2):230–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rempel JK, Holmes JG, Zanna MP (1985) Trust in close relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 49(1):95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ross JM (2008) Moderators of trust and reliance across multiple decision aids. University of Central Florida

  24. Rotter JB (1967) A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. J Pers 35(4):651–665. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4865583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rotter JB (1971) Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. Am Psychol 26(5):443–452. doi:10.1037/h0031464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sheridan TB (1975) Considerations in modeling human supervisory controller. In: IFAC 6th world congress, Laxenburg, Austria, pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sheridan TB, Hennessy RT (1984) Research and modeling of supervisor control behavior. National Academy, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sitkin SB, Roth NL (2011) Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organ Sci 4(3):367–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Taboada M, Martínez-Tomás R, Ferrández JM (2011) New perspectives on the application of expert systems. Expert Syst 28(4):285–287. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0394.2011.00599.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yagoda RE (2010) Development of the human robot interaction workload measurement tool. In: Human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, San Francisco, CA, pp 304–308. doi:10.1177/154193121005400408

    Google Scholar 

  31. Yagoda RE, Coovert MD (2012) How to work and play with robots: an approach to modeling human–robot interaction. Comput Hum Behav 28(1):60–68. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yagoda R, Coovert MD (2009) Modeling human-robot interaction with Petri-nets. In: Human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, San Antonio, TX, pp 1413–1417. doi:10.1177/154193120905301852

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zuboff S (1988) In the age of smart machines: the future of work technology and power. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the United States Army Research Lab Human Research and Engineering Directorate (ARL-HRED) through the United States Army Research Office (ARO), #W911NF-07-R-0001-04.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA

    Rosemarie E. Yagoda & Douglas J. Gillan

Authors
  1. Rosemarie E. Yagoda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas J. Gillan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosemarie E. Yagoda.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Final HRI Trust Scale (PDF 91 kB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yagoda, R.E., Gillan, D.J. You Want Me to Trust a ROBOT? The Development of a Human–Robot Interaction Trust Scale. Int J of Soc Robotics 4, 235–248 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0144-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0144-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation