Sharing a work team with robots: The negative effect of robot co-workers on in-group identification with the work team

Abstract This study investigated whether the introduction of robots as teammates has an impact on in-group identification. We used two samples from the United States (N = 1003, N = 969). Participants were asked to imagine a hypothetical situation in which they were assigned to a work team at a new job. The number of robot teammates was manipulated, and the control group included only humans. Two studies examined perceived in-group identification with variance analysis and individual differences with regression analysis. Having a robot on the work team had a negative impact on in-group identification. The results suggest that when humans are members of minority subgroup within a work team, their subgroup identity is threatened. Identification with a work team including robot members is associated with individual factors such as attitude towards robots, technological expertise, and personality. Our findings indicate that introducing a robot as a teammate may affect in-group identification process negatively with some individual differences.

[1]  Jens Hainmueller,et al.  Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Friederike Eyssel,et al.  When a Robot’s Group Membership Matters , 2013, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[3]  Ben J. A. Kröse,et al.  Enjoyment, intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people , 2008, 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[4]  Lisa M. Pytlik Zillig,et al.  What Do We Assess when We Assess a Big 5 Trait? A Content Analysis of the Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Processes Represented in Big 5 Personality Inventories , 2002 .

[5]  Elizabeth Sklar,et al.  A study measuring the impact of shared decision making in a human-robot team , 2017, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[6]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[7]  Tom Postmes,et al.  Sharing differences: The inductive route to social identity formation , 2012 .

[8]  J. Lepine.  Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. , 2005, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[10]  Lionel Robert,et al.  Personality in the Human Robot Interaction Literature: A Review and Brief Critique , 2018, AMCIS.

[11]  T. Nomura,et al.  Exploring effects of educational backgrounds and gender in human-robot interaction , 2011, 2011 International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr ).

[12]  A. W. Evans,et al.  Communicating intent to develop shared situation awareness and engender trust in human-agent teams , 2017, Cognitive Systems Research.

[13]  F. Eyssel,et al.  Social categorization of social robots: anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. , 2012, The British journal of social psychology.

[14]  Domenico Prattichizzo,et al.  Cooperative Navigation for Mixed Human–Robot Teams Using Haptic Feedback , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems.

[15]  David J. Hauser,et al.  Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants , 2015, Behavior Research Methods.

[16]  Philip D. Waggoner,et al.  The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis , 2018, Political Science Research and Methods.

[17]  J. Turner,et al.  The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence , 1986 .

[18]  R. Carleton,et al.  Into the unknown: A review and synthesis of contemporary models involving uncertainty. , 2016, Journal of anxiety disorders.

[19]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Human–Robot Interaction , 2016, Hum. Factors.

[20]  Herman Aguinis,et al.  Best Practice Recommendations for Designing and Implementing Experimental Vignette Methodology Studies , 2014 .

[21]  Blake E. Ashforth,et al.  Identification in Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions , 2008 .

[22]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[23]  P. Flandorfer.  Population Ageing and Socially Assistive Robots for Elderly Persons: The Importance of Sociodemographic Factors for User Acceptance , 2012 .

[24]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[25]  Lionel P. Robert,et al.  Emotional Attachment, Performance, and Viability in Teams Collaborating with Embodied Physical Action (EPA) Robots , 2018, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[26]  Victor J. Callan,et al.  Employee Adjustment to an Organizational Merger: An Intergroup Perspective , 2001 .

[27]  Suzanne T Bell,et al.  Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[28]  Tanya Menon,et al.  Getting Even or Being at Odds? Cohesion in Even- and Odd-Sized Small Groups , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[29]  C. Waternaux.  Asymptotic distribution of the sample roots for a nonnormal population , 1976 .

[30]  Fred A. Mael,et al.  Social identity theory and the organization , 1989 .

[31]  A. Salomons,et al.  Fear of robots at work: the role of economic self-interest , 2017 .

[32]  H. F. van Tuijl,et al.  The Big Five Personality Traits and Individual Satisfaction With the Team , 2006 .

[33]  Bertjan Doosje,et al.  Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[34]  M. Sherif.  Superordinate Goals in the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict , 1958, American Journal of Sociology.

[35]  C. Kelly.  Social Identity and Intergroup Perceptions in Minority-Majority Contexts , 1990 .

[36]  Kate A. Ratliff,et al.  Using Nonnaive Participants Can Reduce Effect Sizes , 2015, Psychological science.

[37]  Andrew M. Carton,et al.  A Theory of Subgroups in Work Teams , 2012 .

[38]  Steve Hinkle,et al.  The Social Identity Perspective , 2004 .

[39]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Collaboration in Human-Robot Teams , 2004, AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference.

[40]  Gregory M. Hurtz,et al.  Personality and job performance: the Big Five revisited. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[41]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction , 2011, Hum. Factors.

[42]  H. Tajfel.  Social identity and intergroup relations , 1985 .

[43]  Jesse J. Chandler,et al.  Inside the Turk , 2014 .

[44]  Stefanos Nikolaidis,et al.  Improved human–robot team performance through cross-training, an approach inspired by human team training practices , 2015, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[45]  V. Groom,et al.  Can robots be teammates?: Benchmarks in human–robot teams , 2007 .

[46]  Daan van Knippenberg,et al.  Work Motivation and Performance: A Social Identity Perspective , 2000 .

[47]  S. Alexander Haslam,et al.  Motivating Individuals and Groups at Work: A Social Identity Perspective on Leadership and Group Performance , 2004 .

[48]  Frances J. Milliken,et al.  Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups , 1996 .

[49]  D. Wegner,et al.  What do I think you're doing? Action identification and mind attribution. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[50]  Peter M. Steiner,et al.  Experimental Vignette Studies in Survey Research , 2010 .

[51]  Jesse Chandler,et al.  Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers , 2013, Behavior Research Methods.

[52]  Sonia Roccas,et al.  Group heterogeneity and tolerance: The moderating role of conservation values , 2011 .

[53]  Joanna Bryson,et al.  Just an Artifact: Why Machines Are Perceived as Moral Agents , 2011, IJCAI.

[54]  Tammy L. Rapp,et al.  Team and Individual Influences on Members’ Identification and Performance per Membership in Multiple Team Membership Arrangements , 2019, The Journal of applied psychology.

[55]  R. Ashmore,et al.  An organizing framework for collective identity: articulation and significance of multidimensionality. , 2004, Psychological bulletin.

[56]  John C. Turner,et al.  Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories , 1999 .

[57]  Randi L. Garcia.  Perceived Self-to-Other Similarity as a Mediator of the Effects of Gender and Racial Composition on Identification in Small Groups , 2017 .

[58]  Sandra Hirche,et al.  Control sharing in human-robot team interaction , 2017, Annu. Rev. Control..

[59]  Maki K. Habib,et al.  Applied ontologies and standards for service robots , 2013, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[60]  F. Eyssel,et al.  (S)he's Got the Look: Gender Stereotyping of Robots1 , 2012 .

[61]  Stephen Fisher,et al.  Team or group? Managers’ perceptions of the differences , 1997 .

[62]  Kyle B. Reed,et al.  Physical Collaboration of Human-Human and Human-Robot Teams , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Haptics.

[63]  H. Tajfel,et al.  Social categorization and intergroup behaviour , 1971 .

[64]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. , 1998 .

[65]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[66]  H. Tajfel,et al.  An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. , 1979 .

[67]  J. Schupp,et al.  Short assessment of the Big Five: robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[68]  Bob Heere,et al.  Stepping Outside the Lines: Developing a Multi-dimensional Team Identity Scale Based on Social Identity Theory , 2007 .

[69]  Selma Sabanovic,et al.  Teammates first: Favoring ingroup robots over outgroup humans , 2017, 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[70]  Michael D. Buhrmester,et al.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[71]  Charles A. O'Reilly,et al.  Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. , 1991 .

[72]  Michael T. Sliter,et al.  Amazon Mechanical Turk in Organizational Psychology: An Evaluation and Practical Recommendations , 2017 .

[73]  Friederike Eyssel,et al.  Minimal Group - Maximal Effect? Evaluation and Anthropomorphization of the Humanoid Robot NAO , 2011, ICSR.

[74]  Thomas F. Pettigrew,et al.  Recent advances in intergroup contact theory , 2011 .

[75]  Julie A. Shah,et al.  Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human–robot teams , 2015, Auton. Robots.

[76]  Rebeca Robles,et al.  Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: Validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies☆ , 2015, International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology.

[77]  Darren George,et al.  SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference , 1998 .