Abstract
In recent years, intelligent machines which can act on our behalf, such as autonomous vehicles, are in increasing numbers. They follow preset procedures and make decisions for people when certain conditions are reached. These machines improve the efficiency of our daily life as well as bring us a new paradigm of interaction with other people. Setting the program for the machine in advance enables us to make an early decision and provides us with a chance to think more comprehensively from a macro perspective. In this case, how the change of this decision-making paradigm will affect our cooperative behavior with others is the main research question of this study. This article proved that the cooperation rate of participants interacting with others by programming the autonomous vehicle in advance was higher than the direct interaction cooperation rate. A conclusion can be drawn through the experiment that when the system can automatically make decisions and participants can modify the decisions, the higher the initial cooperation rate of the system was, the higher the final cooperation rate of the participants would be. From this, it can be preliminarily concluded that the automation system can guide people to choose cooperation more. In addition, compared with the results of similar studies abroad, it can be found that people’s cooperative behavior is different due to different cultural backgrounds. Chinese culture advocates the doctrine of the mean, and the participants’ choices of cooperation or betrayal are more balanced. In contrast, western culture is more rational and extreme, in which a large part of the participants chooses to cooperate completely or betray completely.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Dewitte, S., Cremer, D.D.: Self-control and cooperation: different concepts, similar decisions? A question of the right perspective. J. Psychol. 135(2), 133–153 (2001)
Mannix, E.A.: Resource dilemmas and discount rates in decision making groups. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 27(4), 379–391 (1991)
Ariely, D., Wertenbroch, K.: Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: self-control by precommitment. Psychol. Sci. 13(3), 219–224 (2002)
Kollock, P.: Social dilemmas: the anatomy of cooperation. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 24(1), 183–214 (1998)
Kortenkamp, K.V., Moore, C.F.: Time, uncertainty, and individual differences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32(5), 603–615 (2006)
Trope, Y., Liberman, N.: Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117(2), 440 (2010)
Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., Van De Kuilen, G.: Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: evidence from a meta-analysis. Exp. Econ. 7(2), 171–188 (2004)
Güth, W., Tietz, R.: Ultimatum bargaining behavior: a survey and comparison of experimental results. J. Econ. Psychol. 11, 417–449 (1990)
Rauhut, H., Winter, F.: A sociological perspective on measuring social norms by means of strategy method experiments. Soc. Sci. Res. 39(6), 1181–1194 (2010)
Giacomantonio, M., De Dreu, C.K., Shalvi, S., Sligte, D., Leder, S.: Psychological distance boosts value-behavior correspondence in ultimatum bargaining and integrative negotiation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46(5), 824–829 (2010)
Agerström, J., Björklund, F.: Temporal distance and moral concerns: future morally questionable behavior is perceived as more wrong and evokes stronger prosocial intentions. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 31(1), 49–59 (2009)
Agerström, J., Björklund, F.: Moral concerns are greater for temporally distant events and are moderated by value strength. Soc. Cogn. 27(2), 261–282 (2009)
Soderberg, C.K., Callahan, S.P., Kochersberger, A.O., Amit, E., Ledgerwood, A.: The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: two meta-analyses. Psychol. Bull. 141(3), 525 (2015)
de Melo, C.M., Marsella, S., Gratch, J.: Social decisions and fairness change when people’s interests are represented by autonomous agents. Auton. Agent. Multi Agent Syst. 32(1), 163–187 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-017-9376-6
de Melo, C.M., Marsella, S., Gratch, J.: Human cooperation when acting through autonomous machines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116(9), 3482–3487 (2019)
Joireman, J.: Environmental problems as social dilemmas: the temporal dimension. In: Understanding Behavior in the Context of Time, pp. 289–304 (2005)
Kuhlman, D.M., Marshello, A.F.: Individual differences in game motivation as moderators of preprogrammed strategy effects in prisoner’s dilemma. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32(5), 922 (1975)
Eagly, A.H., Crowley, M.: Gender and helping behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychol. Bull. 100(3), 283 (1986)
Eckel, C.C., Grossman, P.J.: Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator experiments. Econ. J. 108(448), 726–735 (1998)
Eckel, C.C., Grossman, P.J.: Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: experimental evidence. In: Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, vol. 1, pp. 509–519 (2008)
Andreoni, J., Vesterlund, L.: Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Q. J. Econ. 116(1), 293–312 (2001)
Simpson, B.: Sex, fear, and greed: a social dilemma analysis of gender and cooperation. Soc. Forces 82(1), 35–52 (2003)
Balliet, D., Parks, C., Joireman, J.: Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a meta-analysis. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 12(4), 533–547 (2009)
Bogaert, S., Boone, C., Declerck, C.: Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a review and conceptual model. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47(3), 453–480 (2008)
Gächter, S., Herrmann, B., Thöni, C.: Culture and cooperation. Philos. Transa. Roy. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365(1553), 2651–2661 (2010)
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.H.: Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, vol. 5. Sage (1984)
Lee, Y.T.: What is missing in Chinese-Western dialectical reasoning? Am. Psychol. 55, 1065–1067 (2000)
Ho, D.Y.F., Chiu, C.Y.: Component ideas of individualism, collectivism, and social organization: an application in the study of Chinese culture (1994)
Roto, V., Palanque, P., Karvonen, H.: Engaging automation at work – a literature review. In: Barricelli, B.R., et al. (eds.) HWID 2018. IAICT, vol. 544, pp. 158–172. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05297-3_11
Sheridan, T.B., Verplank, W.L.: Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge Man-Machine Systems Lab (1978)
Siegel, M.S.: Persuasive robotics: how robots change our minds. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2008)
Murphy, R.O., Ackermann, K.A., Handgraaf, M.: Measuring social value orientation. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 6(8), 771–781 (2011)
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, 72171015 and 72021001) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (YWF-21-BJ-J-314).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Zhi, X., Zhou, R. (2022). The Influence of Automation and Culture on Human Cooperation. In: Bhutkar, G., et al. Human Work Interaction Design. Artificial Intelligence and Designing for a Positive Work Experience in a Low Desire Society. HWID 2021. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 609. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02904-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02904-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-02903-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-02904-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)
