When Robots Interact with Groups, Where Does the Trust Reside?

A longstanding and multifaceted core-challenge within the development of social robotics and their use in social settings relates to the robots’ trustworthiness [9]. While there is a burgeoning literature covering many diverse aspects of trust within HRI, such as robots gaining trust [10], losing and restoring of trust [11, 4], addressing users’ over-trusting a robot [14], much of the attention in research examines trust in terms of simple dyadic interaction [8]⁴⁴4This is not peculiar for trust as a topic within HRI, but rather could be seen as illustrative of the overall field’s attention.

Even within a ‘simple’ dyadic scenario, variations in social contexts may influence people’s trust towards a robot and determine what constitutes trustworthy behaviour [6]. The social context may further derive from people’s understanding of who ‘owns responsibility’ for the robot and their motivations, thereby bringing additional agents into potentially any current social HRI scenario [3]. Moreover, emerging work exploring trust in contexts of larger social groups shines a light on these additional social complexities for a robot to navigate; for example, recent empirical research indicates that trust within a group can be shaped via a robot mediating human-human interactions [1] or making its own social disclosures [12].

For a robot to determine trust from a group, a simple summation of the respective trust of each individual within the group might not be appropriate; where multiple (potentially concurrent) users are interacting with a system, there may be many approaches to determining trust holistically, let alone optimising for this [7]. Similarly, building trust with one group could potentially diminish trust with another. Given this, ought a robot to simply maximise overall trust, or are there alternatives to take and if so, how may a robot determine this calculus? Research considering how a robot could, or should, potentially navigate dynamic, social, group interaction contexts, can illuminate HRI issues which will arise in real-world contexts, where robots have been deployed alongside humans engaging in their daily life, providing future HRI research directions. In this paper, we present three scenarios in which a hypothetical social robot must address issues relating to trust across multiple agents and identify appropriate actions across competing demands for trust.

For the sake of simplicity, we keep the same premise across the scenarios of a hypothetical barista robot, (well beyond state-of-the-art, e.g., [13]). This type of service-oriented social robot is envisioned to be able to

• interact with customers

• interact with co-workers

• have the capabilities of functioning as a barista.

The setting for the scenarios is chosen as a familiar illustration of co-existing and competing interests within the service industry, an area identified as high interest in enrollment of social robotics [2]. Recent research highlights the dynamic social environment and careful navigation through social interactions that may be expected of barista robots in HRI scenarios with multiple people [5]. As identified in their work, social violations such as breaching privacy, can have meaningful impact on how people view the robot and could potentially affect human-human interaction.

While such challenges may also be ones that people face in everyday human-human interaction, we consider the specific requirements necessary for a robot to appropriately navigate these, as both meaningful steps in developing models for trust in robotics, and as illustrative of the complex (often unstated) decisions humans make in such circumstances. Challenges particular to a robot may include its inability to make decisions in real time, using the same level, and complexity, of a priori information accessible to humans making equivalent decisions.

Our setting presents the barista robot as being a member of one group (the service staff) in relation to two other groups (customers and managers). Specifically, the scenarios serve to highlight potential issues for a robot in navigating working with service staff for a manager towards customers. The overarching question is not one of how can the robot build trust, but with whom should the robot seek to build trust.

These simple scenarios provide some context for the complexities involved in trust management that various deployed robotic systems will encounter. If robots are to become truly interactive in non-trivial environments, then managing various levels of trust will be inevitable.

Non-dyadic trust, or group trust, may become especially important to navigate. These scenarios ask a number of questions around privacy sharing, group trust building, and issues surrounding group-alignment. Finding situations in which a robot will have to choose one group over another - and how that could affect the underlying trust of the excluded group - is not far fetched. As they are group level decisions, it is also integral to begin looking at trust properties of groups over merely collections of individuals.

These thought experiments are intended to highlight issues with social robots that will be able to make decisions in real-world scenarios. It is not a case of, should a robot make decisions, but rather, an acknowledgement of the need to address what needs to be in place when robots do make decisions in the real-world. What social and legal infrastructure needs to be in place to ensure everyone in these situations is clear on who is responsible for the actions and outcomes of the advanced technology in the work-place? Considering who trusts whom in these human-robot-manager situations is one practical starting point to answering such a question.