ABSTRACT
Robots are expected to become present in society in increasing numbers, yet few studies in human-robot interaction (HRI) go beyond one-to-one interaction to examine how emotions, attitudes, and stereotypes expressed toward groups of robots differ from those expressed toward individuals. Research from social psychology indicates that people interact differently with individuals than with groups. We therefore hypothesize that group effects might similarly occur when people face multiple robots. Further, group effects might vary for robots of different types. In this exploratory study, we used videos to expose participants in a between-subjects experiment to robots varying in Number (Single or Group) and Type (anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, or mechanomorphic). We then measured participants' general attitudes, emotions, and stereotypes toward robots with a combination of measures from HRI (e.g., Godspeed Questionnaire, NARS) and social psychology (e.g., Big Five, Social Threat, Emotions). Results suggest that Number and Type of observed robots had an interaction effect on responses toward robots in general, leading to more positive responses for groups for some robot types, but more negative responses for others.
- Gates, B., 2007. A robot in every home. Scientific American, 296(1): 58--65.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alač, M., J. Movellan, and Tanaka, F.. 2011. When a robot is social: Spatial arrangements and multimodal semiotic engagement in the practice of social robotics. Social Studies of Science, 41(6): 126--159.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sprowitz, A., et al. 2010. Roombots: Reconfigurable robots for adaptive furniture. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine 5(3): 20--32. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brooks, R. A. 2002. Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us. New York: Pantheon Books. Google ScholarDigital Library
- National Science Foundation. 2006. National Robotics Initiative. URL: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14500/nsf14500.htmGoogle Scholar
- Kuchenbrandt, D., et al. 2013. When a robot's group membership matters. International Journal of Social Robotics 5(3): 409--417.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bee, N., E. André, and Tober, S. 2009. Breaking the ice in human-agent communication: Eye-gaze based initiation of contact with an embodied conversational agent. Intelligent Virtual Agents, 5773: 229--242. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gong, L. 2008. How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Computers in Human Behavior 24(4): 1494--1509. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chang, W. L., et al. 2012. The effect of group size on people's attitudes and cooperative behaviors toward robots in interactive gameplay. Proc. of RO-MAN 2012: 845--850.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fraune, M. R., & Šabanović, S. 2014. Negative Attitudes toward Minimalistic Robots with Intragroup Communication Styles. Proc. of RO-MAN 2014: 1116--1121.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fink, J., et al. 2014. Dynamics of anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Cognitive Sciences, August 27 2014, URL: http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/201545/files/paper.pdfGoogle Scholar
- DiSalvo, C. F., et al. 2002. All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. Proc. of DIS '02: 321--326. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., and Dautenhahn, K. 2003. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and autonomous systems 42(3): 143--166.Google Scholar
- Reeves, B. and Nass. C. 1997. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kahn, P. H., et al. 2007. What is a human?: Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human-robot interaction. Interaction Studies 8(3): 363--390.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Häring, M., D. Kuchenbrandt, and André. E. 2014. Would you like to play with me?: How robots' group membership and task features influence human-robot interaction. Proc. of HRI'14: 9--16. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kuchenbrandt, D., et al. 2011. Minimal group-maximal effect? Evaluation and anthropomorphization of the humanoid robot NAO. Proc. of ICSR 2011: 104--113. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Turner, J.C., et al. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Wildschut, T., et al. 2003. Beyond the group mind: a quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological bulletin 129(5): 698--722.Google Scholar
- Meier, B. P. and Hinsz, V. B. 2004. A comparison of human aggression committed by groups and individuals: An interindividual-intergroup discontinuity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40(4): 551--559.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Macrae, C. N. and Bodenhausen, G.V.. 2000. Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology 51(1): 93--120.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Howard, J.W. and Rothbart, M. 1980. Social categorization and memory for in-group and out-group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38(2): 301.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wilder, D. A. 1978. Perceiving persons as a group: Effects on attributions of causality and beliefs. Social Psychology 41(1): 13--23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dasgupta, N., M. R. Banaji, and Abelson, R.P. 1999. Group entitativity and group perception: Associations between physical features and psychological judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(5): 991--1003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kaplan, F. 2004. Who is afraid of the humanoid? Investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics 1(3): 465--480.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McGlynn, R.P., D.J. Harding, and Cottle, J.L. 2009. Individual-group discontinuity in group-individual interactions: Does size matter? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 12(1): 129--143.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mori, M. 2012. The uncanny valley. MacDorman, K.F. and Kageki, N (translators). IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 19(2): 98--100. (Original published in 1970)Google ScholarCross Ref
- MacDorman, K. F. 2006. Subjective ratings of robot video clips for human likeness, familiarity, and eeriness: An exploration of the uncanny valley. Proc. of ICCS/CogSci-2006 Long Symposium: Toward Social mechanisms of Android Science: 26--29.Google Scholar
- Goetz, J., S. Kiesler, and Powers, A. 2003. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. Proc. of ROMAN 2003: 55--60.Google Scholar
- Mackie, D.M. and Smith, E.R. 2002. Beyond prejudice:Moving from positive and negative evaluations to differentiated reactions to social groups. In D.M. Mackie and E.R. Smith (Eds.) From Prejudice to Intergroup Emotions: Differentiated Reactions to Social Groups: 1.Google Scholar
- Nomura, T., T. Kanda, and Suzuki, T. 2006. Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction. AI & SOCIETY 20(2): 138--150. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cottrell, C. A. and Neuberg, S. L. 2005. Different emotional reactions to different groups: a sociofunctional threat-based approach to" prejudice". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88(5): 770--789.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., and Swann Jr, W.B. 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in personality 37(6): 504--528.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bartneck, C., et al. 2009. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 1(1): 71--81.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ezer, N. 2008. Is a Robot an Appliance, Teammate, or Friend? Age-related differences in expectations of and attitudes towards personal home-based robots. ProQuest.Google Scholar
- Heider, F. and Simmel, M. 1944. An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology: 243--259.Google Scholar
- Herr, P.M., Sherman, S.J., and Fazio, R.H. 1983. On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19(4): 323--340.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kriegel, M., et al. 2010. Digital body hopping-migrating artificial companions. Proc. of Digital Futures '10.Google Scholar
Index Terms
Rabble of Robots Effects: Number and Type of Robots Modulates Attitudes, Emotions, and Stereotypes
Recommendations
Threatening Flocks and Mindful Snowflakes: How Group Entitativity Affects Perceptions of Robots
HRI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionRobots are expected to become present in society in increasing numbers, yet few studies in human-robot interaction (HRI) go beyond one-to-one interaction to examine how characteristics of robot groups will affect HRI. In particular, people may show more ...
Group-based Emotions in Teams of Humans and Robots
HRI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot InteractionProviding social robots an internal model of emotions can help them guide their behaviour in a more humane manner by simulating the ability to feel empathy towards others. Furthermore, the growing interest in creating robots that are capable of ...
Effects of robot-human versus robot-robot behavior and entitativity on anthropomorphism and willingness to interact
AbstractAs robots become prevalent, people are increasingly interacting with multiple robots at once. Thus, it is important to not only examine how robot behavior toward humans affects interaction, but how robot behavior toward other robots ...
Highlights- Social robot behavior toward robots increased anthropomorphism of robots.
- ...
Comments