Abstract— When it’s between a robot on your team and a human member of a competing team, who will you favor? Past

When it’s between a robot on your team and a human member of a competing team, who will you favor? Past research indicates that people favor and behave more morally toward ingroup than outgroup members. Conversely, people typically indicate that they have more moral responsibilities toward humans than nonhumans. This study puts participants into two competing teams, each consisting of two humans and two robots, to examine how people behave toward others depending on Group (ingroup, outgroup) and Agent (human, robot) variables. Measures of behavioral aggression used in previous studies (i.e., noise blasts) and reported liking and anthropomorphism evaluations of humans and robots indicated that participants favored the ingroup over the outgroup, and humans over robots. Group had a greater effect than Agent, so participants preferred ingroup robots to outgroup humans.

[1]  Selma Sabanovic,et al.  Colleague or Tool? Interactivity Increases Positive Perceptions of and Willingness to Interact with a Robotic Co-worker , 2016, ICSR.

[2]  Selma Sabanovic,et al.  Getting in Touch: How imagined, actual, and physical contact affect evaluations of robots , 2016, 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[3]  Selma Sabanovic,et al.  Rabble of Robots Effects: Number and Type of Robots Modulates Attitudes, Emotions, and Stereotypes , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[4]  Selma Sabanovic,et al.  Negative Attitudes toward minimalistic Robots with intragroup communication styles , 2014, The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[5]  N. Haslam,et al.  Dehumanization and infrahumanization. , 2014, Annual review of psychology.

[6]  A. Greenwald,et al.  With malice toward none and charity for some: ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. , 2014, The American psychologist.

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

[8]  Marjorie Rhodes,et al.  Social Categories as Markers of Intrinsic Interpersonal Obligations , 2013, Psychological science.

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

[10]  Kurt Gray,et al.  Mind Perception Is the Essence of Morality , 2012, Psychological inquiry.

[11]  Friederike Eyssel,et al.  ‘If you sound like me, you must be more human’: On the interplay of robot and user features on human-robot acceptance and anthropomorphism , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[12]  Emanuele Castano,et al.  Morality shifting in the context of intergroup violence , 2012 .

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

[14]  P. W. Singer,et al.  Robots at War , 2011 .

[15]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  The new ontological category hypothesis in human-robot interaction , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[16]  Sau-lai Lee,et al.  Hitting a robot vs. hitting a human: Is it the same? , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[17]  D. Wegner,et al.  Causes and consequences of mind perception , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  Lowell Gaertner,et al.  When Rejection by One Fosters Aggression Against Many: Multiple-Victim Aggression as a Consequence of Social Rejection and Perceived Groupness. , 2008, Journal of experimental social psychology.

[19]  N. Haslam,et al.  Attributing and denying humanness to others , 2008 .

[20]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  “Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do!” switching off a robot , 2007, 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[21]  D. Wegner,et al.  Dimensions of Mind Perception , 2007, Science.

[22]  N. Haslam,et al.  Animals and Androids , 2007, Psychological science.

[23]  Brian P. Meier,et al.  A comparison of human aggression committed by groups and individuals: An interindividual–intergroup discontinuity☆ , 2004 .

[24]  R. Baumeister,et al.  If you can't join them, beat them: effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[25]  M. Biernat,et al.  Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  M. Hogg,et al.  Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. , 1989 .

[27]  Muzafer Sherif,et al.  The Robbers Cave experiment : intergroup conflict and cooperation , 1988 .

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