ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2026
Politeness cannot make up for robots' errors.
Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the impact of robot politeness and error-prone behavior on user perceptions through two user studies involving non-humanoid robots. Politeness was operationalized at two levels based on Lakoff's, (1973) politeness rules-one condition implemented all three of Lakoff's rules, demonstrating the highest level of politeness, while the other omitted them, resulting in a behavior that was strict but not impolite. The correctness was manipulated by comparing an error-free robot behavior to a behavior that included intentional errors. The studies were conducted using two different tasks with two robot types-a mobile robot and a manipulator robot-and involved 59 young adult participants (ages 24-28) with engineering backgrounds. Participants consistently rated the correct and polite robots most favorably. However, politeness did not offset the negative effects of erroneous behavior. In both studies, the robot that was correct but strict was rated more positively than the one that was polite yet made mistakes. These findings suggest that, at least in utilitarian task settings involving technically proficient users, politeness alone cannot compensate for performance failures. Moreover, a polite robot that makes errors may even frustrate users more than a straightforward but accurate one. The findings also emphasize the importance of evaluating HRI performance across different robot types and tasks, as these factors significantly shape user perceptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.