Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces an agent-based model, implemented in NetLogo, to simulate trust dynamics, workload distribution, and collaborative performance in human-robot teams, validated against a meta-analysis of human-robot trust. The model's sensitivity analysis identified robot reliability as the most influential factor on trust, task success, and productivity, aligning with meta-analytic findings. Scenario analysis revealed a trust-performance decoupling, highlighting calibration error as a crucial diagnostic beyond mere trust magnitude.
Trust-performance decoupling in human-robot teams reveals that high trust doesn't guarantee success, and vice versa, highlighting the importance of calibration error as a key diagnostic.
This paper presents an empirically grounded agent-based model capturing trust dynamics, workload distribution, and collaborative performance in human-robot teams. The model, implemented in NetLogo 6.4.0, simulates teams of 2--10 agents performing tasks of varying complexity. We validate against Hancock et al.'s (2021) meta-analysis, achieving interval validity for 4 of 8 trust antecedent categories and strong ordinal validity (Spearman \r{ho}=0.833ρ= 0.833 \r{ho}=0.833). Sensitivity analysis using OFAT and full factorial designs (n=50n = 50 n=50 replications per condition) reveals robot reliability exhibits the strongest effect on trust (η2=0.35η^2 = 0.35 η2=0.35) and dominates task success (η2=0.93η^2 = 0.93 η2=0.93) and productivity (η2=0.89η^2 = 0.89 η2=0.89), consistent with meta-analytic findings. Trust asymmetry ratios ranged from 0.07 to 0.55 -- below the meta-analytic benchmark of 1.50 -- revealing that per-event asymmetry does not guarantee cumulative asymmetry when trust repair mechanisms remain active. Scenario analysis uncovered trust-performance decoupling: the Trust Recovery scenario achieved the highest productivity (4.29) despite the lowest trust (38.2), while the Unreliable Robot scenario produced the highest trust (73.2) despite the lowest task success (33.4\%), establishing calibration error as a critical diagnostic distinct from trust magnitude. Factorial ANOVA confirmed significant main effects for reliability, transparency, communication, and collaboration (p<.001p < .001 p<.001), explaining 45.4\% of trust variance. The open-source implementation provides an evidence-based tool for identifying overtrust and undertrust conditions prior to deployment.
