1887
Volume 21, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

How do people treat robot teammates compared to human opponents? Past research indicates that people favor, and behave more morally toward, ingroup than outgroup members. People also perceive that they have more moral responsibilities toward humans than nonhumans. This paper presents a 2×2×3 experimental study that placed participants ( = 102) into competing teams of humans and robots. We examined how people morally behave toward and perceive players depending on players’ Group Membership (ingroup, outgroup), Agent Type (human, robot), and participant group Team Composition (humans as minority, equal, or majority within the ingroup compared to robots). Results indicated that participants favored the ingroup over the outgroup and humans over robots – to the extent that they favored ingroup robots over outgroup humans. Interestingly, people differentiated more between ingroup than outgroup humans and robots. These effects generalized across Team Composition.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/is.18043.fra
2021-02-09
2021-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackerman, J. M. , Shapiro, J. R. , Neuberg, S. L. , Kenrick, D. T. , Becker, D. V. , Griskevicius, V. , … & Schaller, M.
    (2006) They all look the same to me (unless they’re angry) from out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity. Psychological Science, 17(10), 836–840. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2006.01790.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01790.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Admoni, H. , Hayes, B. , Feil-Seifer, D. , Ullman, D. , & Scassellati, B.
    (2013) Dancing With Myself: The effect of majority group size on perceptions of majority and minority robot group members. InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol.35, No.35).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartneck, C. , Van Der Hoek, M. , Mubin, O. , & Al Mahmud, A.
    (2007, March). “Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do!” switching off a robot. In2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp.217–222). IEEE.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biernat, M. , & Manis, M.
    (1994) Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 5. 10.1037/0022‑3514.66.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  5. Campbell, D. T.
    (1958) Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3(1), 14–25. 10.1002/bs.3830030103
    https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830030103 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carpenter, J.
    (2016) Culture and human-robot interaction in militarized spaces: A war story: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315562698
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315562698 [Google Scholar]
  7. Correia, F. , Alves-Oliveira, P. , Maia, N. , Ribeiro, T. , Petisca, S. , Melo, F. S. , & Paiva, A.
    (2016, August). Just follow the suit! trust in human-robot interactions during card game playing. In2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN) (pp.507–512). IEEE. 10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745165
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745165 [Google Scholar]
  8. Correia, F. , Mascarenhas, S. , Prada, R. , Melo, F. S. , & Paiva, A.
    (2018, February). Group-based emotions in teams of humans and robots. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.261–269). ACM. 10.1145/3171221.3171252
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171252 [Google Scholar]
  9. Endsley, M. R.
    (1988, May). Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). InProceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (pp.789–795). IEEE. 10.1109/NAECON.1988.195097
    https://doi.org/10.1109/NAECON.1988.195097 [Google Scholar]
  10. (1995) Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 65–84. 10.1518/001872095779049499
    https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049499 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eyssel, F. , De Ruiter, L. , Kuchenbrandt, D. , Bobinger, S. , & Hegel, F.
    (2012, March). ‘If you sound like me, you must be more human’: On the interplay of robot and user features on human-robot acceptance and anthropomorphism. In2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp.125–126). IEEE.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fraune, M. R. , Kawakami, S. , Šabanović, S. , De Silva, R. , & Okada, M.
    (2015) Three’s company, or a crowd?: The effects of robot number and behavior on HRI in Japan and the USA. Robotics: Science and Systems.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fraune, M. R. , Šabanović, S. , Smith, E. R. , Nishiwaki, Y. , & Okada, M.
    (2017, March). Threatening flocks and mindful snowflakes: How group entitativity affects perceptions of robots. In2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI (pp.205–213). IEEE.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fraune, M. R. , & Šabanović, S.
    (2014, August). Negative attitudes toward minimalistic robots with intragroup communication styles. InThe 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.1116–1121). IEEE. 10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926401
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926401 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fraune, M. R. , Šabanović, S. , & Smith, E. R.
    (2017) Teammates first: Favoring ingroup robots over outgroup humans. In2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp.1432–1437). IEEE. 10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172492
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172492 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fraune, M. R. , Sherrin, S. , Šabanović, S. , & Smith, E. R.
    (2015, March). Rabble of robots effects: Number and type of robots modulates attitudes, emotions, and stereotypes. InProceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.109–116). ACM. 10.1145/2696454.2696483
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696483 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gray, H. M. , Gray, K. , & Wegner, D. M.
    (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619–619. 10.1126/science.1134475
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475 [Google Scholar]
  18. Greenwald, A. G. , & Pettigrew, T. F.
    (2014) With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. American Psychologist, 69(7), 669. 10.1037/a0036056
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036056 [Google Scholar]
  19. Haslam, N. , & Loughnan, S.
    (2014) Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423. 10.1146/annurev‑psych‑010213‑115045
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045 [Google Scholar]
  20. Haslam, N. , Loughnan, S. , Kashima, Y. , & Bain, P.
    (2008) Attributing and denying humanness to others. European Review of Social Psychology, 19(1), 55–85. 10.1080/10463280801981645
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280801981645 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hogg, M. A.
    (2010) Influence and leadership. Handbook of Social Psychology. 10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002031
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002031 [Google Scholar]
  22. Insko, C. A. , Hoyle, R. H. , Pinkley, R. L. , Hong, G.-Y. , Slim, R. M. , Dalton, B. , … Bernthal, P. R.
    (1988) Individual-group discontinuity: The role of a consensus rule. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24(6), 505–519. 10.1016/0022‑1031(88)90049‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(88)90049-2 [Google Scholar]
  23. Insko, C. A. , Wildschut, T. , & Cohen, T. R.
    (2013) Interindividual–intergroup discontinuity in the prisoner’s dilemma game: How common fate, proximity, and similarity affect intergroup competition. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 168–180. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  24. Judd, C. M. , & Park, B.
    (1988) Out-group homogeneity: Judgments of variability at the individual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 778. 10.1037/0022‑3514.54.5.778
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.778 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kahn Jr, P. H. , Kanda, T. , Ishiguro, H. , Freier, N. G. , Severson, R. L. , Gill, B. T. , … Shen, S.
    (2012) “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 303. 10.1037/a0027033
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027033 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kahn, P. H. , Reichert, A. L. , Gary, H. E. , Kanda, T. , Ishiguro, H. , Shen, S. , … & Gill, B.
    (2011, March). The new ontological category hypothesis in human-robot interaction. In2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp.159–160). IEEE.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kim, Y. , & Sundar, S. S.
    (2012) Anthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless?Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 241–250. 10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuchenbrandt, D. , Eyssel, F. , Bobinger, S. , & Neufeld, M.
    (2013) When a Robot’s Group Membership Matters. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(3), 409–417. 10.1007/s12369‑013‑0197‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0197-8 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, S. L. , & Lau, I. Y. M.
    (2011, March). Hitting a robot vs. hitting a human: is it the same?. InProceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction (pp.187–188). ACM. 10.1145/1957656.1957724
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957724 [Google Scholar]
  30. Leidner, B. , & Castano, E.
    (2012) Morality shifting in the context of intergroup violence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 82–91. 10.1002/ejsp.846
    https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.846 [Google Scholar]
  31. Leite, I. , McCoy, M. , Lohani, M. , Ullman, D. , Salomons, N. , Stokes, C. , … & Scassellati, B.
    (2015, March). Emotional storytelling in the classroom: Individual versus group interaction between children and robots. InProceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.75–82). ACM. 10.1145/2696454.2696481
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696481 [Google Scholar]
  32. Levine, J. M. , & Moreland, R. L.
    (1994) Group socialization: Theory and research. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 305–336. 10.1080/14792779543000093
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000093 [Google Scholar]
  33. Loughnan, S. , & Haslam, N.
    (2007) Animals and androids implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans. Psychological Science, 18(2), 116–121. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2007.01858.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01858.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Nass, C. , Fogg, B. , & Moon, Y.
    (1996) Can computers be teammates?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(6), 669–678. 10.1006/ijhc.1996.0073
    https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0073 [Google Scholar]
  35. Robertson, J.
    (2017) Robot Reincarnation. Life in Post-Bubble Japan, 153.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Sachdev, I. , & Bourhis, R. Y.
    (1991) Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21(1), 1–24. 10.1002/ejsp.2420210102
    https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420210102 [Google Scholar]
  37. Suzuki, M.
    (2015) A Funeral for ‘Aibo’Robot Dogs at a Temple Near Tokyo.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Tajfel, H. , Billig, M. G. , Bundy, R. P. , & Flament, C.
    (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
    https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202 [Google Scholar]
  39. Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A. , Oakes, P. J. , Reicher, S. D. , & Wetherell, M. S.
    (1987) Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Twenge, J. M. , Baumeister, R. F. , Tice, D. M. , & Stucke, T. S.
    (2001) If you can’t join them, beat them: effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058. 10.1037/0022‑3514.81.6.1058
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058 [Google Scholar]
  41. Waytz, A. , Gray, K. , Epley, N. , & Wegner, D. M.
    (2010) Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383–388. 10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  42. Wullenkord, R. , Fraune, M. R. , Eyssel, F. , & Šabanović, S.
    (2016) Getting in touch: How imagined, actual, and physical contact affect evaluations of robots. In2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp.980–985). IEEE. 10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745228
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745228 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/is.18043.fra
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/is.18043.fra
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): group effects , human-robot interaction , morality and multiple robots

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error