I–C–E Framework: Concepts for Group Dynamics Research in Human-Robot Interaction

Abstract

The research community of human-robot interaction relies on theories and phenomena from the social sciences in order to study and validate robotic developments in interaction. These studies mainly concerned one (human) on one (robot) interactions in the past. The present paper shifts the attention to groups and group dynamics and reviews relevant concepts from the social sciences: ingroup identification (I), cohesion (C) and entitativity (E). Ubiquitous robots will be part of larger social settings in the near future. A conceptual framework, the I-C-E framework, is proposed as a theoretical foundation for group (dynamics) research in HRI. Additionally, we present methods and possible measures for these relevant concepts and outline topics for future research.

How and When Can Robots Be Team Members? Three Decades of Research on Human–Robot Teams

“…Researchers also have proposed an algorithm to predict team performance, based on the robot's performance in interaction with human team members or when it is autonomous (Crandall et al, 2003), as well as various control approaches for human-directed robot teams (Musić et al, 2019;Musić & In most of the studies, the robot morphology, robot level, and type of embodiment are not specified. The six studies that provide information (Abrams & der Pütten, 2020;Dudenhoeffer et al, 2001;Gladden, 2014;Manikonda et al, 2007;Talamadupula et al, 2014;Yazdani et al, 2016) focus on functional robots (e.g., Growbot [Dudenhoeffer et al, 2001], Pioneer P3-AT [Talamadupula et al, 2014]) and indicate different robot levels (lower/same and higher level) and embodiments (physical robot; simulation). d…”

“…Category 3: Effects of Team Processes Focus Areas and Major Findings. Studies of team processes and their effects account for most extant research on HRTs (see Tables 9-12), perhaps because, unlike HRI or HRC, HRTs tend to be long-term in nature, so they require careful consideration of relevant processes, which are at least partially unique to each team (Abrams & der Pütten, 2020). Furthermore, HRTs have long been popular, especially in military and USAR settings, which require sophisticated coordination to fulfill their missions.…”

“…In particular, ongoing discussion centers on whether the minimum required HRT size should be two or three members. Dyads with just two members represent very specific constellations, and they lack the dynamics that are of core interest for HRT research (Abrams & der Pütten, 2020). Yet we found many conceptual and empirical studies that claim to investigate HRTs by studying dyadic teams.…”

“… Note: a Disciplines: I = HRI, II = management, III = military, IV = cognitive science, V = robotics, VI = space, VII = (urban) search and rescue, VIII = ethics; studies are categorized based on a “best fit”-approach and might comprise aspects of more than one considered research discipline. b Team interaction: T = task interaction, T+S = task & social interaction. c In most of the studies, the robot morphology, robot level, and type of embodiment are not specified. The six studies that provide information (Abrams & der Pütten, 2020; Dudenhoeffer et al, 2001; Gladden, 2014; Manikonda et al, 2007; Talamadupula et al, 2014; Yazdani et al, 2016) focus on functional robots (e.g., Growbot [Dudenhoeffer et al, 2001], Pioneer P3-AT [Talamadupula et al, 2014]) and indicate different robot levels (lower/same and higher level) and embodiments (physical robot; simulation). d In most of the studies, the team setup is not specified. The two studies that provide information focus on human-directed robot teams (Musić & Hirche, 2018; Yazdani et al, 2016).…”

Supplemental Material for Human–robot interaction through the lens of social psychological theories of intergroup behavior.

“…Studies of human intergroup behavior show that interaction between two groups is often more competitive and aggressive, compared to one-on-one interaction (a phenomenon termed the discontinuity effect; Schopler & Insko, 1992). Recent work has begun to explore how people perceive and socially categorize robots in intergroup scenarios (e.g., Vanman & Kappas, 2019), as well as how to conceptualize and study robots in the context of group dynamics (e.g., Abrams & Rosenthal-von der Pütten, 2020;Jung et al, in press).…”