The rapid development of artificial intelligence brings with it the increasing likelihood of ubiquitous interaction between humans and robots. A significant contribution to studying human–robot interactions (HRI) comes from experimental studies, whereby humans and robots interact in controlled conditions and researchers observe and measure the reactions of humans (and robots). The use of experiments to understand human interactions has long been a central source of information in the field of experimental social psychology. These studies have yielded numerous major insights into the causes and outcomes of interaction. The methodology of experiments, however, including the demands made upon human participants to behave in predictable ways and the impact of experimenters’ expectancies upon results, has been a focus of much critical analysis. We examined a sample of 100 high impact HRI studies for evidence of potentially contaminating experimental artefacts and/or authors’ awareness of such factors. In our conclusions we highlight several methodological issues that appeared frequently in our sample, which may impede generalisations from laboratory experiments to real-world settings. Ultimately, we suggest that researchers may need to reformulate the methodologies used to study the unique features of HRI, and offer a number of recommendations for researchers designing HRI experiments.

人工智能的飞速发展带来了人类与机器人之间无处不在的交互的可能性。实验研究对人机交互的重大贡献来自于实验研究，即人与机器人在受控条件下进行交互，研究人员观察并测量人（与机器人）的反应。长期以来，利用实验来理解人类的互动一直是实验社会心理学领域的主要信息来源。这些研究对相互作用的原因和结果产生了许多重大见解。然而，实验的方法论，包括对人类参与者以可预测的方式行事的要求以及实验者的期望对结果的影响，一直是许多关键分析的重点。我们检查了100个高影响力HRI研究的样本，以发现可能污染实验伪像和/或作者对此类因素的认识的证据。在我们的结论中，我们重点介绍了样本中经常出现的几种方法学问题，这些问题可能会阻碍从实验室实验到现实环境的概括。最终，我们建议研究人员可能需要重新制定用于研究HRI独特功能的方法，并为设计HRI实验的研究人员提供许多建议。这可能会阻碍从实验室实验到实际环境的推广。最终，我们建议研究人员可能需要重新制定用于研究HRI独特功能的方法，并为设计HRI实验的研究人员提供许多建议。这可能会阻碍从实验室实验到实际环境的推广。最终，我们建议研究人员可能需要重新制定用于研究HRI独特功能的方法，并为设计HRI实验的研究人员提供许多建议。