While artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied for decision-making processes, ethical decisions pose challenges for AI applications. Given that humans cannot always agree on the right thing to do, how would ethical decision-making by AI systems be perceived and how would responsibility be ascribed in human-AI collaboration? In this study, we investigate how the expert type (human vs. AI) and level of expert autonomy (adviser vs. decider) influence trust, perceived responsibility, and reliance. We find that participants consider humans to be more morally trustworthy but less capable than their AI equivalent. This shows in participants’ reliance on AI: AI recommendations and decisions are accepted more often than the human expert’s. However, AI team experts are perceived to be less responsible than humans, while programmers and sellers of AI systems are deemed partially responsible instead.

There is a growing use of intelligent systems to support human decision-making across several domains. Trust in intelligent systems, however, is pivotal in shaping their widespread adoption. Little is currently understood about how trust in an intelligent system evolves over time and how it is mediated by the accuracy of the system. We aim to address this knowledge gap by exploring trust formation over time and its relation to system accuracy. To that end, we built an intelligent house recommendation system and carried out a longitudinal study consisting of 201 participants across 3 sessions in a week. In each session, participants were tasked with finding housing that fit a given set of constraints using a conventional web interface that reflected a typical housing search website. Participants could choose to use an intelligent decision support system to help them find the right house. Depending on the group, participants received a variation of accurate or inaccurate advice from the intelligent system throughout each session. We measured trust using a trust in automation scale at the end of each session.

We develop a taxonomy that categorizes HRI failure types and their impact on trust to structure the broad range of knowledge contributions. We further identify research gaps in order to support fellow researchers in the development of trustworthy robots. Studying trust repair in HRI has only recently been given more interest and we propose a taxonomy of potential trust violations and suitable repair strategies to support researchers during the development of interaction scenarios. The taxonomy distinguishes four failure types: Design, System, Expectation, and User failures and outlines potential mitigation strategies. Based on these failures, strategies for autonomous failure detection and repair are presented, employing explanation, verification and validation techniques. Finally, a research agenda for HRI is outlined, discussing identified gaps related to the relation of failures and HR-trust.