Our Robots, Our Team: Robot Anthropomorphism Moderates Group Effects in Human–Robot Teams

Fraune, Marlena R.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01275

Cited by 40 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The behavior of the robots was identical and because the prompts were made with identical voices it is possible that the attributed mind to the robots were very similar. This finding is consistent with previous work that shows that humanlike behavior produces stronger differences for task performance compared to human-like appearance (Abubshait and Wiese, 2017;Fraune, 2020). Examination of the correlations between the BFI factors and task performance data provided limited support for our initial hypothesis that agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism would be positively correlated with, and extraversion negatively correlated with, measures of compliance to a robot coach.…”

Section: Discussion Studysupporting

confidence: 87%

Robot Authority in Human-Robot Teaming: Effects of Human-Likeness and Physical Embodiment on Compliance

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The anticipated social capabilities of robots may allow them to serve in authority roles as part of human-machine teams. To date, it is unclear if, and to what extent, human team members will comply with requests from their robotic teammates, and how such compliance compares to requests from human teammates. This research examined how the human-likeness and physical embodiment of a robot affect compliance to a robot's request to perseverate utilizing a novel task paradigm. Across a set of two studies, participants performed a visual search task while receiving ambiguous performance feedback. Compliance was evaluated when the participant requested to stop the task and the coach urged the participant to keep practicing multiple times. In the first study, the coach was either physically co-located with the participant or located remotely via a live-video. Coach type varied in human-likeness and included either a real human (confederate), a Nao robot, or a modified Roomba robot. The second study expanded on the first by including a Baxter robot as a coach and replicated the findings in a different sample population with a strict chain of command culture. Results from both studies showed that participants comply with the requests of a robot for up to 11 min. Compliance is less than to a human and embodiment and human-likeness on had weak effects on compliance.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Studysupporting

confidence: 87%

Robot Authority in Human-Robot Teaming: Effects of Human-Likeness and Physical Embodiment on Compliance

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consistent with theoretical and empirical accounts (Hoogland et al, 2015;Van Bavel & Cunningham, 2012), increased identification with a team partner was related to enhanced intergroup biases in both human-human and human-robot teams. While our results suggest that team membership and identification leads to a general ingroup-favouritism through increased outgroup-dislike, with no clear difference between trial-by-trial emotional reactions to the outcome for the different ingroup members and the self, a previous study found that ingroup human members were favored over ingroup robot members in terms of negative behavioural outcome (Fraune, 2020;Fraune et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

“…Tajfel et al, 1971). As indicated by the current findings as well as previous findings (Correia et al, 2018;Eyssel & Kuchenbrandt, 2012;Fraune, 2020;Fraune et al, 2017;Kuchenbrandt et al, 2013), shared team or group membership can foster common group identity that binds humans and robots together which leads to favouring ingroup over outgroup members. This is further proven by the effect of team identification.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Directly comparing the results of a humanoid and mechanical robot, we found that a robot's human likeness did not increase the intergroup bias. However, Fraune (2020) found that the intergroup bias for humanoid compared to mechanical robots closely mimicked that for humans. As the mechanical robot did induce similar intergroup biases as the humanoid robot and human player, the explicit function role of the robot's form and shape in the perception and reaction to robots remains to be understood.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…We predicted that participants would express more empathy toward ingroup teammates than toward outgroup members--feeling better when ingroup members win and feeling worse when ingroup members lose; and experience more schadenfreude towards outgroup members than ingroup members -feeling better when outgroup members lose than when ingroup members lose. Based on previous research (Fraune, 2020;Fraune et al, 2017) we also expected the strength of the intergroup biases to depend on the agent types in Experiment 3 and 4. Namely, we expected to find a significant three-way interaction between game results (winning or losing), group membership (ingroup or outgroup) and agent type (human or robot) when participants would rate how good/bad they feel, whereby the intergroup biases would be more pronounced for human players compared to robot players.…”

Section: Experiments 3 Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Empathy and schadenfreude in human–robot teams

Jong¹,

Hortensius²,

Hsieh³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intergroup dynamics shape the ways in which we interact with other people. We feel more empathy towards ingroup members compared to outgroup members, and can even feel pleasure when an outgroup member experiences misfortune, known as schadenfreude. Here, we test the extent to which these intergroup biases emerge during interactions with robots. We measured trial-by-trial fluctuations in emotional reactivity to the outcome of a competitive reaction time game to assess both empathy and schadenfreude in arbitrary human-human and human-robot teams. Across four experiments (total n = 361), we observed a consistent empathy and schadenfreude bias driven by team membership. People felt more empathy towards ingroup members than outgroup members and more schadenfreude towards outgroup members. The existence of an intergroup bias did not depend on the nature of the agent: the same effects were observed for human-human and human–robot teams. People reported similar levels of empathy and schadenfreude towards a human and robot player. The human likeness of the robot did not consistently influence this intergroup bias, however, similar empathy and schadenfreude biases were observed for both humanoid and mechanical robots. For all teams, this bias was influenced by the level of team identification; individuals who identified more with their team showed stronger intergroup empathy and schadenfreude bias. Together, we show that similar intergroup dynamics that shape our interactions with people can also shape interactions with robots. Our results highlight the importance of taking intergroup biases into account when examining social dynamics of human-robot interactions.

show abstract