Whose Job Is It Anyway? A Study of Human-Robot Interaction in a Collaborative Task

By Pamela J. Hinds, Teresa L. Roberts, Hank Jones. Hum. Comput. Interact., 2004

463 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c2a9460e59155c0dd9e95917b3d3244063a935a8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Acceptance of Healthcare Robots for the Older Population: Review and Future Directions (2009, background): “Research has found that a human-like appearance can encourage humans to share responsibility with a robot [66], so this may be appropriate in job-sharing roles.”
How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots (2009, background): “showed that when collaborating with robots of varying degrees of human likeness people took less credit for work done and less personal responsibility as robots were more humanlike [2].”
Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management (2018, background): “, 1996), and attributed less responsibility to a machine-like robot than to a human-like robot (Hinds et al., 2004).”
Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork (2005, background): “For instance, many HRI experiments adhere to a Wizard of Oz methodology to bypass the physical and cognitive limits of what robots can do today (e.g., [6]).”
Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot (2018, result): “This level of suspicion was lower or on par with other studies employing WoZ methods (e.g., Aharoni & Fridlund, 2007; Hinds, Roberts, & Jones, 2004), and our total sample size after exclusions ( N = 98) met the threshold from the power analysis.”
The Uncanny Valley: Effect of Realism on the Impression of Artificial Human Faces (2007, background): “…is acknowledged as a guideline to design the physical appearance of robots (Cañamero & Fredslund, 2001; DiSalvo et al. , 2002; Fong et al. , 2003; Hinds et al. , 2004; Minato et al., 2004a; Minato et al., 2004b; Woods et al. , 2004) and agents in virtual reality (Aylett, 2004; Fabri et al. ,…”
Reconfiguring Boundary Relations: Robotic Innovations in Pharmacy Work (2012, background): “2006) and human-robot interaction (Hinds et al. 2004), reflecting the increased prevalence of professional and personal service robots in the workplace.”
(S)he's Got the Look: Gender Stereotyping of Robots1 (2012, background): “For example, this concerns the systematic study of applications of specific types of robots (Hinds et al., 2004; Kanda et al., 2004; Lohse, Hegel, & Wrede, 2008; Pineau et al., 2003).”
Improved human-robot team performance using Chaski, A human-inspired plan execution system (2011, methodology): “The Likert questionnaire, similar to those used in [7, 8], addressed the robot’s performance, the robot’s contribution to the team, shared goals, team ﬂuency, trust in the robot, and attribution of credit and blame.”
Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research (2020, background): “…presence and speech, creating “ social-robots, ” interactive assistants that are able to serve in roles such as an interactive museum guide, team member, or social companion (Bickmore, Pfeifer, & Schulman, 2011; Hinds, Roberts, & Jones, 2004; Zhang, Kaber, Zhu, Swangnetr, Mosaly, & Hodge, 2010).”