Trust(worthiness) Issues with Trust in Human–Robot Interaction

Trust is a very popular concept in Human–Robot Interaction (HRI) to explain why and how people interact with robots. However, the definition of trust and the methods used to study the concept vary widely, often leading to confusion instead of insight. In this position paper, we discuss possible reasons for the confusion and disagreement by reviewing theory and methods. Our main criticism is that HRI researchers have recently taken an oversimplified approach by not adhering to the process model of trust. Instead, we have primarily measured perceived trustworthiness (often as a proxy for trust) and assumed that it accurately predicts behavior or is satisfactory as an end goal. In addition, many experimental paradigms fail to account for the critical elements of risk and vulnerability that are essential for trust to guide behavior. With this position paper, we aim to shed light on these “trust issues” in HRI and to improve the HRI community’s approach by providing suggestions for enhancing the quality of future research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
Published
2025-12-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3778865
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.32
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Trust(worthiness) Issues with Trust in Human–Robot Interaction

Ewart J. de Visser, Eileen Roesler, Lionel Robert, Linda Onnasch
3 citations
ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
7.32
article

Trust(worthiness) Issues with Trust in Human–Robot Interaction

Ewart J. de Visser, Eileen Roesler, Lionel Robert, Linda Onnasch
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Trust is a very popular concept in Human–Robot Interaction (HRI) to explain why and how people interact with robots. However, the definition of trust and the methods used to study the concept vary widely, often leading to confusion instead of insight. In this position paper, we discuss possible reasons for the confusion and disagreement by reviewing theory and methods. Our main criticism is that HRI researchers have recently taken an oversimplified approach by not adhering to the process model of trust. Instead, we have primarily measured perceived trustworthiness (often as a proxy for trust) and assumed that it accurately predicts behavior or is satisfactory as an end goal. In addition, many experimental paradigms fail to account for the critical elements of risk and vulnerability that are essential for trust to guide behavior. With this position paper, we aim to shed light on these “trust issues” in HRI and to improve the HRI community’s approach by providing suggestions for enhancing the quality of future research.

ACM Transactions on Human-Robot InteractionVol. 15(3)
George Mason University (US), University of Michigan (US), Michigan United (US), United States Air Force Academy (US), Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
7.32
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.