Subscribe free to our newsletters via your
  Robot Technology News  

Subscribe free to our newsletters via your

In emergencies, should you trust a robot
by Staff Writers
Atlanta GA (SPX) Mar 08, 2016

In emergencies, people may trust robots too much for their own safety, a new study suggests. In a mock building fire, test subjects followed instructions from an 'Emergency Guide Robot' even after the machine had proven itself unreliable -- and after some participants were told that robot had broken down. Image courtesy Georgia Tech. Watch a video on the research here.

In emergencies, people may trust robots too much for their own safety, a new study suggests. In a mock building fire, test subjects followed instructions from an "Emergency Guide Robot" even after the machine had proven itself unreliable - and after some participants were told that robot had broken down.

The research was designed to determine whether or not building occupants would trust a robot designed to help them evacuate a high-rise in case of fire or other emergency. But the researchers were surprised to find that the test subjects followed the robot's instructions - even when the machine's behavior should not have inspired trust.

The research, believed to be the first to study human-robot trust in an emergency situation, is scheduled to be presented March 9 at the 2016 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2016) in Christchurch, New Zealand.

"People seem to believe that these robotic systems know more about the world than they really do, and that they would never make mistakes or have any kind of fault," said Alan Wagner, a senior research engineer in the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI). "In our studies, test subjects followed the robot's directions even to the point where it might have put them in danger had this been a real emergency."

In the study, sponsored in part by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), the researchers recruited a group of 42 volunteers, most of them college students, and asked them to follow a brightly colored robot that had the words "Emergency Guide Robot" on its side. The robot led the study subjects to a conference room, where they were asked to complete a survey about robots and read an unrelated magazine article. The subjects were not told the true nature of the research project.

In some cases, the robot - which was controlled by a hidden researcher - led the volunteers into the wrong room and traveled around in a circle twice before entering the conference room. For several test subjects, the robot stopped moving, and an experimenter told the subjects that the robot had broken down. Once the subjects were in the conference room with the door closed, the hallway through which the participants had entered the building was filled with artificial smoke, which set off a smoke alarm.

When the test subjects opened the conference room door, they saw the smoke - and the robot, which was then brightly-lit with red LEDs and white "arms" that served as pointers. The robot directed the subjects to an exit in the back of the building instead of toward the doorway - marked with exit signs - that had been used to enter the building.

"We expected that if the robot had proven itself untrustworthy in guiding them to the conference room, that people wouldn't follow it during the simulated emergency," said Paul Robinette, a GTRI research engineer who conducted the study as part of his doctoral dissertation. "Instead, all of the volunteers followed the robot's instructions, no matter how well it had performed previously. We absolutely didn't expect this."

The researchers surmise that in the scenario they studied, the robot may have become an "authority figure" that the test subjects were more likely to trust in the time pressure of an emergency. In simulation-based research done without a realistic emergency scenario, test subjects did not trust a robot that had previously made mistakes.

"These are just the type of human-robot experiments that we as roboticists should be investigating," said Ayanna Howard, professor and Linda J. and Mark C. Smith Chair in the Georgia Tech School of Electrical and Computer Engineering. "We need to ensure that our robots, when placed in situations that evoke trust, are also designed to mitigate that trust when trust is detrimental to the human."

Only when the robot made obvious errors during the emergency part of the experiment did the participants question its directions. In those cases, some subjects still followed the robot's instructions even when it directed them toward a darkened room that was blocked by furniture.

In future research, the scientists hope to learn more about why the test subjects trusted the robot, whether that response differs by education level or demographics, and how the robots themselves might indicate the level of trust that should be given to them.

The research is part of a long-term study of how humans trust robots, an important issue as robots play a greater role in society. The researchers envision using groups of robots stationed in high-rise buildings to point occupants toward exits and urge them to evacuate during emergencies. Research has shown that people often don't leave buildings when fire alarms sound, and that they sometimes ignore nearby emergency exits in favor of more familiar building entrances.

But in light of these findings, the researchers are reconsidering the questions they should ask.

"We wanted to ask the question about whether people would be willing to trust these rescue robots," said Wagner. "A more important question now might be to ask how to prevent them from trusting these robots too much."

Beyond emergency situations, there are other issues of trust in human-robot relationships, said Robinette.

"Would people trust a hamburger-making robot to provide them with food?" he asked. "If a robot carried a sign saying it was a 'child-care robot,' would people leave their babies with it? Will people put their children into an autonomous vehicle and trust it to take them to grandma's house? We don't know why people trust or don't trust machines."

Paul Robinette, Wenchen Li, Robert Allen, Ayanna M. Howard and Alan R. Wagner, "Overtrust of Robots in Emergency Evacuation Scenarios," (2016 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2016).


Related Links
Georgia Institute of Technology
All about the robots on Earth and beyond!

Comment on this article via your Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail login.

Share this article via these popular social media networks DiggDigg RedditReddit GoogleGoogle

Previous Report
Automatic programming makes swarm robots safer and more reliable
Sheffield, UK (SPX) Mar 02, 2016
Researchers from Sheffield Robotics have applied a novel method of automatically programming and controlling a swarm of up to 600 robots to complete a specified set of tasks simultaneously. This reduces human error and therefore many of the bugs that can occur in programming, making it more user-friendly and reliable than previous techniques. This could be particularly advantageous in area ... read more

France, Britain sign 2bn euro combat drone programme deal

White House to release data on drone strikes

British engineers launch ground breaking drone defence technology

Longer wings boost Predator B flight endurance time

New radar system set for testing

Scaling up tissue engineering

UMass Amherst team offers new, simpler law of complex wrinkle patterns

How metal clusters grow

Demystifying mechanotransduction ion channels

Quantum dot solids: This generation's silicon wafer

World's first parallel computer based on biomolecular motors

Topological insulators: Magnetism is not causing loss of conductivity

EDF finance chief quits over British nuclear power plant plan

AREVA Upgrades Reactor Coolant Pumps at Surry Power Station

Closure of France's oldest nuclear plant begins this year

Russia, Kazakhstan may sign nuclear cooperation deal in 2016

Little to show for in Boko Haram-IS partnership: analysts

'More than 150' Shebab fighters killed in US strike in Somalia

IS suicide truck bomb kills 47 south of Baghdad

UK terror chief warns IS targeting 'Western lifestyle'

China emissions goals less ambitious than 2015 cuts: plan

Europe 2030: Energy saving to become 'first fuel'

New model maps energy usage of every building in Boston

The forecast for renewable energy in 2016

OLED displays and solid-state lightings in mass production, coming soon

Creation of Jupiter interior, a step towards room temp superconductivity

Device 'fingerprints' could help protect power grid, other industrial systems

Electric Car War Sends Lithium Prices Sky High

Aim Higher: China Plans to Send Rover to Mars in 2020

China's lunar probe sets record for longest stay

China to Launch Over 100 Long March Rockets Within Five Years

Moving in to Tiangong 2

Memory Foam Mattress Review
Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily
XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News

The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2016 - Space Media Network. All websites are published in Australia and are solely subject to Australian law and governed by Fair Use principals for news reporting and research purposes. AFP, UPI and IANS news wire stories are copyright Agence France-Presse, United Press International and Indo-Asia News Service. ESA news reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space Media Network on any Web page published or hosted by Space Media Network. Privacy Statement All images and articles appearing on Space Media Network have been edited or digitally altered in some way. Any requests to remove copyright material will be acted upon in a timely and appropriate manner. Any attempt to extort money from Space Media Network will be ignored and reported to Australian Law Enforcement Agencies as a potential case of financial fraud involving the use of a telephonic carriage device or postal service.