When your boss is a robot: Workers are more spiteful to robot supervisors that seem more human

Yam, Kai Chi; Goh, E-Yang; Fehr, Ryan; Lee, Randy; Soh, Harold

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104360

Cited by 43 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 90 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, find that people respond to new stimuli (human-like robots) in the same way that they respond to familiar stimuli (humans) if both stimuli closely resembled one another (Guttman & Kalish, 1956;. Likewise, Yam et al (2022) found that people were more likely to act spitefully to robot supervisors who delivered negative feedback when those robots were more human-like. There's no reason to retaliate to mere social depictions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Social robots as depictions of social agents

Clark¹,

Fischer²

2022

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social robots serve people as tutors, caretakers, receptionists, companions, and other social agents. People know that the robots are mechanical artifacts, yet they interact with them as if they were actual agents. How is this possible? The proposal here is that people construe social robots not as social agents per se, but as depictions of social agents. They interpret them much as they interpret ventriloquist dummies, hand puppets, virtual assistants, and other interactive depictions of people and animals. Depictions as a class consist of three physical scenes with part-by-part mappings between them: (a) a base scene (the raw physical artifact), (b) the depiction proper (the artifact construed as a depiction), and (c) the scene depicted (the scene people are to imagine). With social robots, evidence shows, people form the same three scenes plus mappings: They perceive the raw machinery of a robot, construe it as a depiction of a character, and, using the depiction as a guide, engage in the pretense that they are interacting with the character depicted. So, with social robots, people also recognize three classes of agents—the characters depicted, the intended recipients of the depictions (those who view or interact with the robots), and the authorities responsible for the robots (the designers, makers, and owners). Construing social robots as depictions, we argue, accounts for many phenomena not covered by alternative models.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Social robots as depictions of social agents

Clark¹,

Fischer²

2022

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Positive AI attitudes appear to be rooted in individual digital technology efficacy (Vu & Lim, 2022), perceived ease of use and usefulness (Fan et al, 2020), and design as assistant (versus a friend, Kim et al, 2021). In addition, Yam and colleagues (2022) note that people perceive AI more positively to the extent that they view AI as having agency and the ability to feel. This last is especially interesting as it goes beyond results related to more traditional, static technologies.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 97%

Artificial Intelligence and Groups: Effects of Attitudes and Discretion on Collaboration

Bezrukova

Spell

Rice

et al. 2023

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We theorize about human-team collaboration with AI by drawing upon research in groups and teams, social psychology, information systems, engineering, and beyond. Based on our review, we focus on two main issues in the teams and AI arena. The first is whether the team generally views AI positively or negatively. The second is whether the decision to use AI is left up to the team members (voluntary use of AI) or mandated by top management or other policy-setters in the organization. These two aspects guide our creation of a team-level conceptual framework modeling how AI introduced as a mandated addition to the team can have asymmetric effects on collaboration level depending on the team’s attitudes about AI. When AI is viewed positively by the team, the effect of mandatory use suppresses collaboration in the team. But when a team has negative attitudes toward AI, mandatory use elevates team collaboration. Our model emphasizes the need for managing team attitudes and discretion strategies and promoting new research directions regarding AI’s implications for teamwork.

show abstract

“…This hints that working with either nonhuman entity might only create negative spillover effects because we are more likely to see other humans as mere instruments. That said, research has also suggested that simple humanizing interventions can confer machines with some levels of feelings and emotions (Yam et al, 2021;Yam, Goh, Fehr, Lee, Soh, & Gray 2022). Doing so might prevent the negative spillover effects similarly observed in the (negative) employee-animal interactions discussed earlier.…”

Section: How To Navigate Dynamics With Nonhuman Entities?mentioning

confidence: 97%

All Creatures Great and Small: A Review and Typology of Employee-Animal Interactions

Quan,

Lam,

Schabram

et al. 2023

Journal of Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Employees interact with animals in a myriad of ways in the context of work. Herein, we seek to catalog this multiplex phenomenon in order to gain theoretical insights. Our article unfolds in four parts. First, we conduct an interdisciplinary review from which we develop a typology of four employee-animal interactions: working for, with, around, and on animals. Second, we outline the current research for each discrete category. Third, we consider key divergent experiences (e.g., the uniquely gendered nature of each) and convergent themes (e.g., all animal work is emotional and hierarchical) across the typology. Fourth, we supplement our review with two metasyntheses of other workplace team interactions—employee-employee and employee-machine/artificial intelligence interactions—to highlight how the study of human-animal interactions can address current conundrums in the organizational domain. We do so to demonstrate that considerations of employee-animal interactions can offer theoretical value to scholars, including those who may not have an inherent interest in the phenomenon. We complement theoretical extensions with suggestions for future research on core management topics, including humanizing workplaces, the future of work, and team collaboration.

show abstract

When your boss is a robot: Workers are more spiteful to robot supervisors that seem more human

Cited by 43 publications

References 90 publications

Social robots as depictions of social agents

Social robots as depictions of social agents

Artificial Intelligence and Groups: Effects of Attitudes and Discretion on Collaboration

All Creatures Great and Small: A Review and Typology of Employee-Animal Interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About