Prompting Prosocial Human Interventions in Response to Robot Mistreatment

Connolly, Joe; Mocz, Viola; Salomons, Nicole; Valdez, J.G.; Tsoi, Nathan; Scassellati, Brian; Vázquez, Marynel

doi:10.1145/3319502.3374781

Cited by 52 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results indicate that conformity is directly linked with the type of task being tested. Future work could analyze how conformity changes depending on the type of task and to further investigate if conformity to robots can be used in pro-social ways [14]. Last, conformity is influenced by individual characteristics [40].…”

Section: Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Minority of One against a Majority of Robots

SalomonsNicole

Strohkorb

QinMeiying

et al. 2021

J. Hum.-Robot Interact.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies have shown that people conform their answers to match those of group members even when they believe the group’s answer to be wrong [2]. In this experiment, we test whether people conform to groups of robots and whether the robots cause informational conformity (believing the group to be correct), normative conformity (feeling peer pressure), or both. We conducted an experiment in which participants (N = 63) played a subjective game with three robots. We measured humans’ conformity to robots by how many times participants changed their preliminary answers to match the group of robots’ in their final answer. Participants in conditions that were given more information about the robots’ answers conformed significantly more than those who were given less, indicating that informational conformity is present. Participants in conditions where they were aware they were a minority in their answers conformed more than those who were unaware they were a minority. Additionally, they also report feeling more pressure to change their answers from the robots, and the amount of pressure they reported was correlated to the frequency they conformed, indicating normative conformity. Therefore, we conclude that robots can cause both informational and normative conformity in people.

show abstract

Section: Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Minority of One against a Majority of Robots

SalomonsNicole

Strohkorb

QinMeiying

et al. 2021

J. Hum.-Robot Interact.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Together with the study reported by Seibt and Vestergaard (2018), three studies suggest that robots can be effective mediators-in direct employment as interlocutors in conflicts among children (Shen et al 2018), and more indirectly as promotors of prosocial motivation in Krátký et al (2016) and Connolly et al (2020).…”

Section: Introducing Human-robot Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…As a number of HRI studies show, human-robot interactions differ from human-human interactions and human-computer (screen) interactions in numerous ways. During the past 15 years of HRI research, it has become apparent that, depending on interaction contexts, robots can be as or more effective than humans in engaging human interaction partners and getting them to follow directions (Utami et al 2017;Bainbridge et al 2008), increasing prosocial behavior (Krátký et al 2016), showing a willingness to disclose private information (Yamazaki et al 2012), providing some cognitive learning gains (Lyzberg et al 2012), eliciting empathy (Seo et al 2015;Connolly et al 2020) and rapport building (Seo et al 2018), and effectively mediating conflict between pairs of children as they attempted to resolve their conflict (Shen et al 2018).…”

Section: Introducing Human-robot Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is Best at Mediating a Social Conflict? Comparing Robots, Screens and Humans

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impacts of various mediation platforms on negotiation outcomes and perceptions are compared in this article. The mediator platforms contrasted were a (teleoperated) Telenoid robot, a human, and a computer screen. All of these platforms used the same script for process diagnosis, analysis, and advice on how to resolve an impasse in a simulated high-tech company de-merger negotiation. A fourth experimental condition consisted of a no-mediation control. More agreements and more integrative agreements were attained by the robotic platform than by the other types of mediator platforms and the control. Mediation via the Telenoid robot also produced more non-structured agreements, which consisted of decisions made outside of the scenario options. Negotiators in this condition had more positive perceptions of the mediation experience, were more satisfied with the outcome, and thought that the mediator’s advice was more useful. Indirect analyses showed that the outcomes mediated the effects of the conditions on perceived satisfaction. Implications of the findings are discussed in terms of responses to novelty, which include creative and divergent modes of thinking.

show abstract

“…Conversely, people may be more hesitant to torture or kill robots when the machines present narrative histories, though this response may be predicated on high trait empathy (Darling et al, 2015). Situational factors may also influence harmbased PMP, as interventions are more likely when bystander robots express sadness at abuse (Connolly et al, 2020) or when patients fights back (Bartneck and Keijsers, 2020).…”

Section: Care/harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Warranty Voids to Uprising Advocacy: Human Action and the Perceived Moral Patiency of Social Robots

Banks

2021

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moral status can be understood along two dimensions: moral agency [capacities to be and do good (or bad)] and moral patiency (extents to which entities are objects of moral concern), where the latter especially has implications for how humans accept or reject machine agents into human social spheres. As there is currently limited understanding of how people innately understand and imagine the moral patiency of social robots, this study inductively explores key themes in how robots may be subject to humans’ (im)moral action across 12 valenced foundations in the moral matrix: care/harm, fairness/unfairness, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, purity/degradation, liberty/oppression. Findings indicate that people can imagine clear dynamics by which anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, and mechanomorphic robots may benefit and suffer at the hands of humans (e.g., affirmations of personhood, compromising bodily integrity, veneration as gods, corruption by physical or information interventions). Patterns across the matrix are interpreted to suggest that moral patiency may be a function of whether people diminish or uphold the ontological boundary between humans and machines, though even moral upholdings bare notes of utilitarianism.

show abstract

Prompting Prosocial Human Interventions in Response to Robot Mistreatment

Cited by 52 publications

References 27 publications

A Minority of One against a Majority of Robots

A Minority of One against a Majority of Robots

Who is Best at Mediating a Social Conflict? Comparing Robots, Screens and Humans

From Warranty Voids to Uprising Advocacy: Human Action and the Perceived Moral Patiency of Social Robots

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About