Social Psychology and Human-Robot Interaction: An Uneasy Marriage

The field of Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) lies at the intersection of several disciplines, and is rightfully perceived as a prime interface between engineering and the social sciences. In particular, our field entertains close ties with social and cognitive psychology, and there are many HRI studies which build upon commonly accepted results from psychology to explore the novel relation between humans and machines. Key to this endeavour is the trust we, as a field, put in the methodologies and results from psychology, and it is exactly this trust that is now being questioned across psychology and, by extension, should be questioned in HRI. The starting point of this paper are a number of failed attempts by the authors to replicate old and established results on social facilitation, which leads us to discuss our arguable over-reliance and over-acceptance of methods and results from psychology. We highlight the recent "replication crisis" in psychology, which directly impacts the HRI community and argue that our field should not shy away from developing its own reference tasks.

[1]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling , 2012, Psychological science.

[2]  M. Borenstein,et al.  Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments , 2006 .

[3]  R. Zajonc SOCIAL FACILITATION. , 1965, Science.

[4]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  Reviewers’ scores do not predict impact: bibliometric analysis of the proceedings of the human–robot interaction conference , 2016, Scientometrics.

[5]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  False-Positive Psychology , 2011, Psychological science.

[6]  R G Geen,et al.  Effects of being observed on short- and long-term recall. , 1973, Journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  V J Ganzer,et al.  Effects of audience presence and test anxiety on learning and retention in a serial learning situation. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Kathleen D. Vohs,et al.  The Value of Believing in Free Will , 2008, Psychological science.

[9]  William D. Criddle The physical presence of other individuals as a factor in social facilitation , 1971 .

[10]  John R. Aiello,et al.  The effect of challenge and threat appraisals under evaluative presence. , 2010 .

[11]  R. Rosenthal The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results , 1979 .

[12]  Bernard Guerin,et al.  Reducing Evaluation Effects in Mere Presence , 1989 .

[13]  Marco Piovesan,et al.  Separating Will from Grace: An experiment on conformity and awareness in cheating , 2013 .

[14]  N. Triplett,et al.  The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition , 1898 .

[15]  M. Baker 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility , 2016, Nature.

[16]  D. Terry,et al.  Effects of an audience on the task performance of subjects with high and low self-esteem , 1993 .

[17]  J. F. Catalano,et al.  The effect of failure and the nature of the audience on performance of a complex motor task. , 1975, Journal of motor behavior.

[18]  Britta Wrede,et al.  Social facilitation with social robots? , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[19]  W. Stroebe The Truth About Triplett (1898), But Nobody Seems to Care , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[20]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[21]  Christoph Bartneck The end of the beginning: a reflection on the first five years of the HRI conference , 2010, Scientometrics.

[22]  Tony Belpaeme,et al.  From characterising three years of HRI to methodology and reporting recommendations , 2016, 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[23]  F. J. Roethlisberger,et al.  Management and the Worker: An Account of a Research Program Conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago , 1939 .

[24]  M. Rosenberg,et al.  THE FILE‐DRAWER PROBLEM REVISITED: A GENERAL WEIGHTED METHOD FOR CALCULATING FAIL‐SAFE NUMBERS IN META‐ANALYSIS , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[25]  Liad Uziel,et al.  Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: A review and meta-analysis , 2007 .

[26]  W. Gardner,et al.  Love Makes You Real: Favorite Television Characters Are Perceived as “Real” in a Social Facilitation Paradigm , 2008 .

[27]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments , 2007, Psychometrika.

[28]  D. Elbourne,et al.  Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects☆ , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[29]  Sebastian Möller,et al.  Investigating the Social Facilitation Effect in Human-Robot Interaction , 2012, Natural Interaction with Robots, Knowbots and Smartphones, Putting Spoken Dialog Systems into Practice.

[30]  C. F. Bond,et al.  Social facilitation: A self-presentational view. , 1982 .

[31]  Bernard Guerin,et al.  Social facilitation and social monitoring: A test of three models , 1983 .

[32]  C. F. Bond,et al.  Social facilitation: a meta-analysis of 241 studies. , 1983, Psychological bulletin.

[33]  Richard A. Feinberg,et al.  Status and Evaluation Potential in the Social Facilitation and Impairment of Task Performance , 1979 .

[34]  N. B. Cottrell,et al.  The presence of an audience and list type (competitional or noncompetitional) as joint determinants of performance in paired-associates learning. , 1967, Journal of personality.

[35]  J. Fisher,et al.  Presence of third parties during neuropsychological evaluations: Who is evaluating whom? , 1996 .

[36]  Michael J. Strube,et al.  The Social Facilitation of a Simple Task , 1981 .

[37]  Elizabeth Gilbert,et al.  Reproducibility Project: Results (Part of symposium called "The Reproducibility Project: Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science") , 2014 .

[38]  Charles R. Crowell,et al.  Robot social presence and gender: Do females view robots differently than males? , 2008, 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[39]  D. Nagin,et al.  AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF DETERRENCE: CHEATING, SELF‐SERVING BIAS, AND IMPULSIVITY* , 2003 .

[40]  Lowell Schoer,et al.  The Effects of Probability of Test Success, Test Importance, and Risk of Detection on the Incidence of Cheating. , 1972 .

[41]  S. Jones,et al.  Was There a Hawthorne Effect? , 1992, American Journal of Sociology.

[42]  John P. Hill,et al.  Knowledge of peer success and risk of detection as determinants of cheating. , 1969 .