“It's Not Paul, It's a Robot”: The Impact of Linguistic Framing and the Evolution of Trust and Distrust in a Collaborative Robot During a Human-Robot Interaction

Anthropomorphic framing and failure comprehensibility influence different facets of trust towards industrial robots

“…Whereas studies which combined anthropomorphic framing and appearance in industrial HRI found negative effects ( Onnasch and Roesler, 2019 ; Roesler et al, 2020 ), another study which investigated anthropomorphic framing without an exposure to an industrial robot found a positive effect on trust ( Kopp et al, 2022 ). However, this was only the case if the anthropomorphic framing was combined with a cooperativeness framing ( Kopp et al, 2022 ). As participants in this study were exposed to an actual robot and no additional framing in regard to the cooperativeness was given, it might be assumed that the possible mismatch of appearance, context, and framing reduces trust ( Goetz et al, 2003 ; Roesler et al, 2022b ).…”

“…For instance, for trust in automation, ( Lee and See, 2004 ), performance, purpose, and process are described as separate dimensions of trust. Even though a transferability of these dimensions to human-robot trust is assumed ( Lewis et al, 2018 ), recent research focused on using single-items of trust (e.g., Salem et al, 2015 ; Sarkar et al, 2017 ; Roesler et al, 2020 ; Onnasch and Hildebrandt, 2021 ) or uni-dimensional trust questionnaires (e.g., Sanders et al, 2019 ; Kopp et al, 2022 ). These approaches are not able to capture different dimensions, and thus cannot contribute much to a more detailed understanding of the underlying determinants of trust and trust dynamics in interaction with robots.…”

“…Different factors collectively contribute to shaping perceived anthropomorphism of a robot. Even something subtle like an anthropomorphic framing of a robot can serve as a trigger that activates human-human interaction schemes ( Onnasch and Roesler, 2019 ; Kopp et al, 2022 ). Due to the activation of humanlike expectations, failures that might have happened to a human as well [i.e., comprehensible failures ( Madhavan et al, 2006 )] could lead to less pronounced trust decrease in the anthropomorphically compared to the technically framed robot.…”

“…In this application domain, anthropomorphism can undermine the perceived tool-like character of the robot, which can result in lower trust and perceived reliability ( Roesler et al, 2020 ; Onnasch and Hildebrandt, 2021 ). The results in regard to anthropomorphic framing are currently mixed in task-related interactions ( Onnasch and Roesler, 2019 ; Roesler et al, 2020 ; Kopp et al, 2022 ). Whereas studies which combined anthropomorphic framing and appearance in industrial HRI found negative effects ( Onnasch and Roesler, 2019 ; Roesler et al, 2020 ), another study which investigated anthropomorphic framing without an exposure to an industrial robot found a positive effect on trust ( Kopp et al, 2022 ).…”

“…The results in regard to anthropomorphic framing are currently mixed in task-related interactions ( Onnasch and Roesler, 2019 ; Roesler et al, 2020 ; Kopp et al, 2022 ). Whereas studies which combined anthropomorphic framing and appearance in industrial HRI found negative effects ( Onnasch and Roesler, 2019 ; Roesler et al, 2020 ), another study which investigated anthropomorphic framing without an exposure to an industrial robot found a positive effect on trust ( Kopp et al, 2022 ). However, this was only the case if the anthropomorphic framing was combined with a cooperativeness framing ( Kopp et al, 2022 ).…”