Are robots perceived as good decision makers? A study investigating trust and preference of robotic and human linesman-referees in football
-
Published:2021-01-01
Issue:1
Volume:12
Page:287-296
-
ISSN:2081-4836
-
Container-title:Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:
Author:
Das Kaustav1, Wang Yixiao2, Green Keith E.3
Affiliation:
1. Department of Design and Environmental Analysis, Cornell University , Ithaca , NY 14850 , United States of America 2. Department of Design and Artificial Intelligence (DAI), Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) , Singapore , Singapore 3. Department of Design and Environmental Analysis and the Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University , Ithaca , NY 14850 , United States of America
Abstract
Abstract
Increasingly, robots are decision makers in manufacturing, finance, medicine, and other areas, but the technology may not be trusted enough for reasons such as gaps between expectation and competency, challenges in explainable AI, users’ exposure level to the technology, etc. To investigate the trust issues between users and robots, the authors employed in this study, the case of robots making decisions in football (or “soccer” as it is known in the US) games as referees. More specifically, we presented a study on how the appearance of a human and three robotic linesmen (as presented in a study by Malle et al.) impacts fans’ trust and preference for them. Our online study with 104 participants finds a positive correlation between “Trust” and “Preference” for humanoid and human linesmen, but not for “AI” and “mechanical” linesmen. Although no significant trust differences were observed for different types of linesmen, participants do prefer human linesman to mechanical and humanoid linesmen. Our qualitative study further validated these quantitative findings by probing possible reasons for people’s preference: when the appearance of a linesman is not humanlike, people focus less on the trust issues but more on other reasons for their linesman preference such as efficiency, stability, and minimal robot design. These findings provide important insights for the design of trustworthy decision-making robots which are increasingly integrated to more and more aspects of our everyday lives.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Behavioral Neuroscience,Artificial Intelligence,Cognitive Neuroscience,Developmental Neuroscience,Human-Computer Interaction
Reference26 articles.
1. K. Shinozawa, F. Naya, J. Yamato, and K. Kogure, “Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 267–279, 2005. 2. B. F. Malle, M. Scheutz, J. Forlizzi, and J. Voiklis, “Which robot am I thinking about? The impact of action and appearance on people’s evaluations of a moral robot,” 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), ACM’s International Conference Proceedings Series (ICPS), Christchurch, 2016, pp. 125–132, https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451743. 3. F. Dylla, A. Ferrein, G. Lakemeyer, J. Murray, O. Obst, T. Rofer, et al., “Approaching a formal soccer theory from behaviour specifications in robotic soccer,” WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, vol. 32, Billerica, MA, USA, WIT Press, 2008. 4. T. Sanders, K. E. Oleson, D. R. Billings, J. Y. C. Chen, and P. A. Hancock, “A model of human-robot trust: theoretical model development,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 55, no. 1, 2011, pp. 1432–1436, https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181311551298. 5. L. Wijnen, J. Coenen, and B. Grzyb, “‘It’s not my fault!”: Investigating the effects of the deceptive behaviour of a humanoid robot,” in Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’17), ACM’s International Conference Proceedings Series (ICPS), Vienna, 2017, pp. 321–322, https://doi.org/10.1145/3029798.3038300.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Forging Trust;Advances in Computational Intelligence and Robotics;2024-05-10 2. The use of path planning algorithm using edge computing technology in college football training;International Journal of Grid and Utility Computing;2022
|
|