Using Speech to Reduce Loss of Trust in Humanoid Social Robots*

As robots become integrated into our society and begin taking on a more social role by entering our homes and workplaces, understanding what it is that makes us trust those robots becomes increasingly important. Even more so, it is important to understand how trust in robots is lost and how this loss can be mitigated.

Trust and loss-of-trust mitigation in human-robot interaction (HRI) is often approached from a performance perspective [1]. However, many theories of trust point out that trust also has a social component (See e.g. [2, 3, 4]). This social component is based more on a feeling of safety and comfort, rather than purely on rational reasoning about the system’s past performance. Understanding how this more social component of trust behaves in HRI scenarios and how the behaviour of a robot may impact it is still a relatively new endeavour when compared to the more traditional performance-based trust.

Previous HRI studies have found that loss of trust or affection towards a robot that has made a mistake can be mitigated by making the robot appear more social by giving a verbal explanation of why the error happened [5]. However, unlike with most neurotypical humans, the ability to speak is not a given for robots, which more often than not are completely mute. How trust in robots is affected by the ability to speak, without necessarily providing explanations for errors, is to our knowledge still an unexplored area of research.

We designed two online independent measures experiments where participants were asked to view a video of a robot exhibiting one of two different behaviours, and afterwards evaluate their perceptions about the robot. Experiment 1 aimed to investigate how faulty and non-faulty gaze behaviours impact trust in HRI. The results of the experiment were ultimately inconclusive, showing no difference in trust between the two conditions. As faulty behaviour has been shown to affect perceptions of robots [6] and negatively impact trust in HRI [7], we theorized the cause to be the fact that a portion of the experiment involved the robot “speaking”. A follow-up experiment, Experiment 2, was thus performed, recreating Experiment 1 as closely as possible, but without the speech portion, this time achieving conclusive results.

This paper thus presents data from these two HRI experiments that together may shed some light on how the ability to speak may impact the perception of a robot in HRI.

The combined results of the two experiments show that, if the robot behaves in a non-faulty manner, unsurprisingly, trust in the robot remains largely unaffected, regardless of whether it can speak. However, once the robot is perceived as being faulty, having the ability to speak seems to reduce the resulting loss of trust, making the faulty robot appear about as trustworthy as the non-faulty ones. According to the results from the Godspeed questionnaire, the speaking robots were also perceived as being more animated, likeable, and, notably, as possessing significantly higher intelligence than the non-speaking robots. This could be an indication that, for humanoid robots, the ability to speak is perceived as a sign of high intelligence. Alternatively, the speaking robot may appear to be more sophisticated or be more capable than the non-speaking robot. Both high perceived intelligence and high capability are believed to have some correlation with a higher trust [10].

Regarding participant-centric characteristic that may affect the trust in the robot, we controlled for mean age, gender distribution, pre-existing negative attitudes towards robots, and participant experience with robots and other autonomous systems. Of these characteristics, only age differed significantly between the two experiments, with the mean age being 12 years higher in Experiment 2. While age has been shown to have an impact on attitudes towards technology, with older people having a more negative attitude [15], the negligible difference that was seen in the distributions of the NARS scores (Figure 4) indicate that the difference in mean age between the experiments is likely not large enough to affect the results.

As ever, there are some limitations that should be kept in mind when using these results. First, as mentioned, the experiments were done online using pre-recorded videos of the robot rather than direct human-robot interaction. The large amount of available participants should safeguard against false positives, however a live-HRI study may nevertheless yield different results.

Second, the experiment scenario was different between the two experiments, with participants in Experiment 1 being told that the voice was the focus of the study. This could potentially have caused participants to ignore the gaze behaviour of the robot and focus solely on its voice, which was the same across the conditions. A follow-up study is planned to investigate this possibility.

Finally, the content of the robot’s speech was not controlled for. It is conceivable that some part of the speech is signalling to some participants that the robot is highly capable or intelligent, causing the trust to increase.

In summary, this paper presents results from two experiments in HRI that together suggest that a humanoid robot with the ability to speak may not suffer the same loss of trust when displaying faulty behaviour as a robot without the ability to speak. We theorize that this effect is due to speech increasing a humanoid robot’s perceived intelligence, which has been shown to correlate with trust in HRI [10]. Further research along these lines may help explain existing studies in HRI (See e.g. [5]) that indicate that a robot providing a verbal explanation for its errors is beneficial for user attitudes.