Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strangers on a Team?: Human Companions, Compared to Strangers or Individuals, are More Likely to Reject a Robot Teammate

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As robots become more common, people interact with them individually, with strangers, and with friends. For example, when coming across a robot in a mall, a family might ask it for instructions. An individual person might hesitate to interact with the robot until they see another person interacting, and then explore the robot together. Although human–robot interaction (HRI) research has recently uncovered the importance of examining differences in group behavior toward robots versus individuals’ behavior, thus far, most HRI research has not distinguished behavior based on group type (e.g., stranger, companion). In this online lab-based study, we explore how individuals, strangers, and companions collaborate with robot teammates. We test competing hypotheses: (1) More cohesive companion groups will form a human subgroup and exclude the robots more than strangers or individuals, vs. (2) More cohesive companion groups will provide social support to interact better with the novel robotic technology than strangers or individuals. In this cooperative context in which participants were required to interact with the robot, results supported H1: the subgroup hypothesis. Based on these findings, people deploying robots should note that if people are required to interact with the robots, the interactions may not go as smoothly for companion groups compared to stranger groups or individuals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Allen K, Bergin R, and Pickar K (2004) Exploring trust, group satisfaction, and performance in geographically dispersed and co-located university technology commercialization teams. Paper presented at the Venture Well. Proceedings of open, the annual conference.

  2. Broadbent E (2017) Interaction with robots: the truths we reveal about ourselves. Annu Rev Psychol 68:627–652. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Campbell DT (1958) Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behav Sci 3(1):14–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carton AM, Cummings JN (2012) A theory of subgroups in work teams. Acad Manag Rev 37(3):441–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carton AM, Cummings JN (2013) The impact of subgroup type and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance. J Appl Psychol 98(5):732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chang W-L, White JP, Park J, Holm A, and Sabanovic S (2012). The effect of group size on people’s attitudes and cooperative behaviors toward robots in interactive gameplay, in Proceeding of the 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: the 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE).

  7. Chappell NL, Zimmer Z (1999) Receptivity to new technology among older adults. Disabil Rehabil 21(5–6):222–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/096382899297648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Christeson S, Fraune MR, Correia F, Mascarenhas S, & Paiva A (in press). I know I am, but what are you? The effects of culture and self categorization on emotions toward the NAO robot. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work.

  9. Collins S, Fraune MR, Smith ER and Sabanovic S (under review). Favoring ingroup robots over outgroup humans: a cross-cultural study. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work.

  10. Correia F, Mascarenhas S, Prada R, Melo FS, and Paiva A (2018) Group-based emotions in teams of humans and robots. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction - HRI ’18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171252

  11. Cottrell CA, Neuberg SL (2005) Different emotional reactions to different groups: a sociofunctional threat-based approach to “prejudice”. J Personal Soc Psychol 88(5):770. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770

  12. Dasgupta N, Banaji MR, Abelson RP (1999) Group entitativity and group perception: associations between physical features and psychological judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 77(5):991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fraune MR (2020) Our robots, our team: robot anthropomorphism moderates group effects in human–robot teams. Front Psychol 11:1275. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fraune MR, Kawakami S, Sabanovic 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. Proceedings of robotics: science and systems. https://doi.org/10.15607/RSS.2015.XI.033

  15. Fraune MR, Nishiwaki Y, Sabanovic S, Smith ER, and Okada M (2017) Threatening flocks and mindful snowflakes: how group entitativity affects perceptions of robots In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI'17). Association for computing machinery, New York, NY, USA, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020248

  16. Fraune MR, Oisted BC, Sembrowski CE, Gates KA, Krupp MM, Šabanović S (2020) Effects of robot-human versus robot-robot behavior and entitativity on anthropomorphism and willingness to interact. Comput Human Behav 105:106220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fraune MR, Sabanovic S, Kanda T (2019) Human group presence, group characteristics, and group norms affect human robot interaction in naturalistic settings. Front Robot AI 6:48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fraune MR, Sabanovic S & Kanda T (2019) Dynamics and characteristics of groups affects human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI '19). IEEE Press, 104–113.

  19. Fraune MR, Sabanovic S, & Smith ER (2017) Teammates first: favoring ingroup robots over outgroup humans. 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2017.8172492

  20. Fraune MR, Šabanović S, Smith ER (2020) Some are more equal than others: ingroup robots gain some but not all benefits of team membership. Interact Stud Soc Behav Commun Biol Artif Syst 21(3):303–328. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18043.fra

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fraune MR, Sherrin S, Šabanović S, and Smith ER (2015) Rabble of robots effects: Number and form of robots modulates attitudes, emotions, and stereotypes. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI'15). ACM, New York, NY, USA.

  22. Fraune, M. R., Sherrin, S., Šabanović, S., & Smith, E. R. (2019b). Is human robot interaction more competitive between groups than between individuals?, in 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International conference on human-robot interaction (HRI) (Daegu: IEEE), 104–113.

  23. Forsyth DR (2021) Recent advances in the study of group cohesion. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 25(3):213–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gaertner L, Insko CA (2000) Intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: categorization, reciprocation, or fear? J Pers Soc Psychol 79(1):77–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Henschel A, Laban G, Cross ES (2021) What makes a robot social? A review of social robots from science fiction to a home or hospital near you. Current Robot Rep 2:9–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00035-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Insko CA, Wildschut T, Cohen TR (2013) Interindividual–intergroup discontinuity in the prisoner’s dilemma game: how common fate, proximity, and similarity affect intergroup competition. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 120(2):168–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson RD, Downing LL (1979) Deindividuation and valence of cues: effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(9):1532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2004) Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Human Comput Interact 19:61–84. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kidd CD, Taggart W, & Turkle S (2006) A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. Proceedings 2006 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2006. ICRA 2006. https://doi.org/10.1109/robot.2006.1642311

  30. Kozak MN, Marsh AA, Wegner DM (2006) What do I think you’re doing? Action identification and mind attribution. J Pers Soc Psychol 90(4):543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kulik JA, Mahler HI (1989) Social support and recovery from surgery. Health Psychol 8(2):221–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.8.2.221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lalonde RN (2002) Testing the social identity-intergroup differentiation hypothesis: ‘we’re not American eh!’ Br J Soc Psychol 41(4):611–630. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602321149902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lickel B, Hamilton DL, Sherman SJ (2001) Elements of a lay theory of groups: types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 5(2):129–140. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lickel B, Hamilton DL, Wieczorkowska G, Lewis A, Sherman SJ, Uhles AN (2000) Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. J Pers Soc Psychol 78(2):223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mackie DM & Smith ER (2017). Group-based emotion in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217702725

  36. Mara M, Stein J-P, Latoschik ME, Appel M (2021) User responses to a humanoid robot observed in real life, virtual reality, 3D and 2D. Front Psychol 12:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Martinez JE, VanLeeuwen D, Stringam BB, & Fraune MR (2023). Hey? ! What did you think about that Robot? Groups polarize users' acceptance and trust of food delivery robots. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 417–427).

  38. McNeese NJ, Demir M, Cooke NJ, Myers C (2018) Teaming with a synthetic teammate: Insights into human autonomy teaming. Human Factors J Human Factors Ergon Soc 60(2):262–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817743223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Platt JR (1964) Strong inference: certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. Science 146(3642):347–353. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.146.3642.347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Preusse H, Skulsky R, Fraune MR, Stringam BB (2021) Together we can figure it out: groups find hospitality robots easier to use and interact with them more than individuals. Front Robot AI 8:730399. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.730399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Reicher S, Spears R, Postmes T (1995) A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 6:161–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sabanovic S, Michalowski MP, and Simmons R (2006) Robots in the wild: observing human robot social interaction outside the lab, in 9th IEEE international workshop on advanced motion control, 2006, Istanbul, Turkey, 27–29 March 2006 (IEEE), 596–601.

  43. Sebo S, Stoll B, Scassellati B, Jung MF (2020) Robots in groups and teams. Proc ACM Human-Comput Interact 4(CSCW2):1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Shah J, Breazeal C (2010) An empirical analysis of team coordination behaviors and action planning with application to human robot teaming. Human Factors: J Human Factors Ergon Soc 52(2):234–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720809350882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Shen S, Slovak P, and Jung MF (2018) Stop. I see a conflict happening.: a ’robot mediator for Young children's interpersonal conflict resolution. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 69–77 ). ACM New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171248

  46. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper.

  47. Smith ER, Sherrin S, Fraune MR, Šabanović S (2020) Positive emotions, more than anxiety or other negative emotions, predict willingness to interact with robots. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 46(8):1270–1283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219900439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wildschut T, Pinter B, Vevea JL, Insko CA, Schopler J (2003) Beyond the group mind: a quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychol Bull 129(5):698–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wortman CB, Conway TL (1985) The role of social support in adaptation and recovery from physical illness. In: Cohen S, Syme SL (eds) Social Support and Health. Academic Press, pp 281–302

    Google Scholar 

  50. Xu J, and Montague E (2013). Group polarization of trust in technology. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 344–348). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

  51. You S, Robert L (2018) Teaming up with robots: an IMOI (inputs-mediators-outputs-inputs) framework of human-robot teamwork. Int J Robotic Eng (IJRE) 2(3):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  52. You S, Robert LP (2019) Subgroup formation in human–robot teams: a multi-study mixed-method approach with implications for theory and practice. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. You S, Robert LP (2022) Subgroup formation in human–robot teams: a multi-study mixed-method approach with implications for theory and practice. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24626

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dylan Van Hooshier, Carmen Rios, and Andrea Alvarez for running participants. Thank you also to National Science Foundation # IIS-1849591 for funding this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, USA

    Cobe Deane Wilson, Danielle Langlois & Marlena R. Fraune

Authors
  1. Cobe Deane Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danielle Langlois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marlena R. Fraune
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cobe Deane Wilson.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: The Trivia Questions by Category

Appendix A: The Trivia Questions by Category

1.1 Practice

"What percentage of farms have a barn that is painted red?"

1.2 Social Behavior

"What percentage of people are adamant that pineapple should not be on pizza?"

"What percent of people have tattoos?"

"What percentage of people have purchased more than 20 dollars in lottery tickets at one time?"

"What percentage of people have specific meals designated for particular days of the week (ex: “Taco Tuesdays” or “Meatloaf night”)?"

1.3 Social Emotion

"What percentage of people say that they have 'mixed emotions' after a breakup?"

"What percentage of people say they are satisfied with their current romantic partner?"

"What percentage of people experience “road rage” regularly?"

"What percent of time would the average college student describe their mood as 'generally positive'?"

1.4 Nonsocial Trivia

"What percentage of modern plants have been in existence since the Cretaceous period?"

"What percentage of stars will die in the next million years?"

"What percent of rain forests are home to elephants?"

"What percent of the world’s landmass is considered desert?"

1.5 Nonsocial Technology

"What percentage of currently in-use PCs have a solid state drive?"

"What percent of electronics do computing machines make up?"

"During the time it is turned on, what percentage of time is the average PC actively in use?"

"What percentage of PCs take less than 15 seconds to turn on?"

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, C.D., Langlois, D. & Fraune, M.R. Strangers on a Team?: Human Companions, Compared to Strangers or Individuals, are More Likely to Reject a Robot Teammate. Int J of Soc Robotics 16, 699–709 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01133-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01133-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation