Why do We Follow Robots? An Experimental Investigation of Conformity with Robot, Human, and Hybrid Majorities

Masjutin, Lisa; Laing, Jessica K.; Maier, Günter W.

doi:10.1109/hri53351.2022.9889675

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mediation analysis also shows that robots with social communication are not perceived as more or less likable or intelligent than robots with functional communication and that how likable or intelligent the robot is perceived does not lead to following the robot's recommendation more often or less often. This is in contrast to previous findings suggesting a link between acceptance and likability (Gideoni et al, 2022) or intelligence (Masjutin et al, 2022;Lourenço et al, 2020;Kunkel et al, 2019;Salomons et al, 2018;Wang et al, 2016;Bartneck et al, 2007).…”

Section: Mediation Of Acceptance Via the Perception Of The Robotcontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…On the one hand, subjects associate robot explanations with numbers as algorithmic thought processes and reward them with unjustifiably high trust (Ehsan et al, 2021) or do not recognize a robot's biased behavior because they judge algorithms to be objective (Hitron et al, 2022). On the other hand, subjects rate robots as less trustworthy and less competent than humans (Finkel and Krämer, 2022) and lower conformity effects in robot majorities have been found than in human majorities (Masjutin et al, 2022;Hertz and Wiese, 2018;Brandstetter et al, 2014).…”

Section: Algorithm Appreciation Versus Algorithm Aversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Increased morality through social communication or decision situation worsens the acceptance of robo-advisors

Arlinghaus,

Strassmann,

Dix

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This German study (N = 317) tests social communication (i.e., self-disclosure, content intimacy, relational continuity units, we-phrases) as a potential compensation strategy for algorithm aversion. Therefore, we explore the acceptance of a robot as an advisor in non-moral, somewhat moral, and very moral decision situations and compare the influence of two verbal communication styles of the robot (functional vs. social). Subjects followed the robot’s recommendation similarly often for both communication styles (functional vs. social), but more often in the non-moral decision situation than in the moral decision situations. Subjects perceived the robot as more human and more moral during social communication than during functional communication but similarly trustworthy, likable, and intelligent for both communication styles. In moral decision situations, subjects ascribed more anthropomorphism and morality but less trust, likability, and intelligence to the robot compared to the non-moral decision situation. Subjects perceive the robot as more moral in social communication. This unexpectedly led to subjects following the robot’s recommendation less often. No other mediation effects were found. From this we conclude, that the verbal communication style alone has a rather small influence on the robot’s acceptance as an advisor for moral decision-making and does not reduce algorithm aversion. Potential reasons for this (e.g., multimodality, no visual changes), as well as implications (e.g., avoidance of self-disclosure in human-robot interaction) and limitations (e.g., video interaction) of this study, are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Mediation Of Acceptance Via the Perception Of The Robotcontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Algorithm Appreciation Versus Algorithm Aversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased morality through social communication or decision situation worsens the acceptance of robo-advisors

Arlinghaus,

Strassmann,

Dix

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Masjutin et al studied the tendency of participants to conform to hybrid majorities consisting of both humans and robots instead of solely focusing on humans or robots. Their results suggest that conformity frequently occurs in such hybrid groups [33].…”

Section: A Group Norm and Conformitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Unleashing Fairness: How a Group Norm-Aware Agent Shakes Up the Ultimatum Game

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of social robots has created new opportunities for them to coexist with humans, but only if they can imitate human-like social behavior. Previous research has examined various robot social cues, such as emotions, gestures, and eye contact. However, an area that has been underresearched is the concept of implicit group norms, which are unwritten rules dictating the expected behavior of group members and can differ across different groups. By improving the ability of robots to behave in expected ways, we hope to promote greater acceptance of robots among humans. In this study, we propose a group norm-aware decision-making model to help robots adapt to group norms, which we evaluated in a human-agent experiment based on the ultimatum game. In this scenario, the gains and losses of one group member affect everyone else. Our results demonstrate that a group norm-aware decision-making agent promotes fairer distributions of benefits among group members, enhancing mutual benefit compared with an agent that does not consider group norms. This study provides a solid foundation for further research in developing social robots that are more adaptable and acceptable to humans. Additionally, our proposed model sets the stage for future robot experiments, ultimately leading to the emergence of more equitable and empathetic human-robot interactions.INDEX TERMS Fairness, group norm, human-agent interaction, human-robot interaction, interactive reinforcement learning, social robot, ultimatum game.

show abstract

“…Studies attempting to replicate Ash's experiments on conformity in situations including non-human advisors led to inconclusive results: some studies showed that, unlike human peers, robot peers cannot create conformity based on social influence (Brandstetter et al, 2014;Shiomi & Hagita, 2016), while other studies demonstrated that conformity may occur when participants are allowed to assess the accuracy of robot advice before making their own decision (Salomons et al, 2018). A recent study (Masjutin et al, 2022) replicating the experiment by Ash with a "hybrid majority" composed of humans and robots showed that participants tended to conform most often with hybrid majorities (two humans and two robots) compared with robot majorities (four robots and one human). This result is informative, but we must keep in mind that the size of our hybrid group (two advisors) is smaller than those used in earlier cited studies conducted within Ash's experimental framework and does not reach the threshold for exerting social influence (three to four confederates in Ash's original experiment).…”

Section: Does Congruence Lead To Conformity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recruiters’ Behaviors Faced with Dual (AI and Human) Recommendations in Personnel Selection

Lacroux

2023

Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do We Follow Robots? An Experimental Investigation of Conformity with Robot, Human, and Hybrid Majorities

Cited by 5 publications

References 31 publications

Increased morality through social communication or decision situation worsens the acceptance of robo-advisors

Increased morality through social communication or decision situation worsens the acceptance of robo-advisors

Unleashing Fairness: How a Group Norm-Aware Agent Shakes Up the Ultimatum Game

Recruiters’ Behaviors Faced with Dual (AI and Human) Recommendations in Personnel Selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About