Media Framing Moderates Risk-Benefit Perceptions and Value Tradeoffs in Human-Robot Collaboration

TL;DR

This study investigates how media framing influences perceptions of risks, benefits, and value in human-robot collaboration, revealing that positive framing leads to additive evaluations while negative framing causes stronger, interdependent effects.

Contribution

It demonstrates how message framing moderates risk-benefit evaluations in HRC, highlighting the importance of strategic communication for acceptance.

Findings

Positive framing results in additive risk-benefit evaluations.

Negative framing strengthens risk effects and introduces negative interactions.

Model fit is higher for positive framing, indicating clearer value attribution.

Abstract

Public acceptance of industrial human-robot collaboration (HRC) is shaped by how risks and benefits are perceived by affected employees. Positive or negative media framing may shape and shift how individuals evaluate HRC. This study examines how message framing moderates the effects of perceived risks and perceived benefits on overall attributed value. In a pre-registered study, participants (N = 1150) were randomly assigned to read either a positively or negatively framed newspaper article in one of three industrial contexts (autonomy, employment, safety) about HRC in production. Subsequently, perceived risks, benefits, and value were measured using reliable and publicly available psychometric scales. Two multiple regressions (one per framing condition) tested for main and interaction effects. Framing influenced absolute evaluations of risk, benefits, and value. In both frames, risks and benefits significantly predicted attributed value. Under positive framing, only main effects were observed (risks: beta = -0.52; benefits: beta = 0.45). Under negative framing, both predictors had stronger main effects (risks: beta = -0.69; benefits: beta = 0.63) along with a significant negative interaction (beta = -0.32), indicating that higher perceived risk diminishes the positive effect of perceived benefits. Model fit was higher for the positive frame (R^2 = 0.715) than for the negative frame (R^2 = 0.583), indicating greater explained variance in value attributions. Framing shapes the absolute evaluation of HRC and how risks and benefits are cognitively integrated in trade-offs. Negative framing produces stronger but interdependent effects, whereas positive framing supports additive evaluations. These findings highlight the role of strategic communication in fostering acceptance of HRC and underscore the need to consider framing in future HRC research.