An integrative model of autonomous agent teammate-likeness

ABSTRACT Advancements in autonomy are beginning to allow humans to partner with machines in order to accomplish work tasks in various settings. As human–agent teaming (HAT) becomes more prevalent as a research topic, the need to understand humans’ psychological perceptions of the machine partner is increasingly important, especially in terms of its perceived role, which may ultimately impact trust and team effectiveness. Specifically, it remains unclear how humans perceive intelligent agents and how consistent these perceptions are with existing taxonomies found in the psychology of teams. The present paper presents a definition of the construct of autonomous agent teammate-likeness (AAT) and a conceptual model of its components, reviews related concepts and germane research and proffers a number of propositions to guide future research. The goal is to contribute to the nascent literature on HAT by establishing a theoretical foundation for the AAT construct, upon which researchers can advance research on HAT.

[1]  J. Gillon,et al.  Group dynamics , 1996 .

[2]  L. Festinger.  A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , 1954 .

[3]  D. Byrne,et al.  A note on the influence propinquity upon acquaintanceships. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[4]  D. Byrne.  Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. , 1961, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[5]  J Tudor-Hart,et al.  On the nature of prejudice. , 1961, The Eugenics review.

[6]  D. Byrne,et al.  Racial prejudice, interpersonal attraction, and assumed dissimilarity of attitudes. , 1962, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[7]  D. Byrne,et al.  Response to attitude similarity-dissimilarity as a function of affiliation need. , 1962, Journal of personality.

[8]  K. N. Wexley,et al.  Demonstration of the Effect, “Similar to Me,” in Simulated Employment Interviews , 1975 .

[9]  Donelson R. Forsyth,et al.  Group dynamics, 2nd ed. , 1990 .

[10]  Jimmy Black.  Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management: Practices and Results in Fortune 1000 Companies , 1993 .

[11]  M. A. Campion,et al.  The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource Management , 1994 .

[12]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Computers are social actors , 1994, CHI '94.

[13]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[14]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review, : . , 1995 .

[15]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[16]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Intelligent agents: theory and practice , 1995, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[17]  Ass,et al.  Can computers be teammates? , 1996 .

[18]  S. G. Cohen,et al.  What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite , 1997 .

[19]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[20]  K. Dirks.  The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. , 1999, The Journal of applied psychology.

[21]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[22]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interactivity in human–computer interaction: a study of credibility, understanding, and influence , 2000 .

[23]  G. Collis,et al.  Dogs as catalysts for social interactions: robustness of the effect. , 2000, British journal of psychology.

[24]  E.,et al.  GROUPS : INTERACTION AND PERFORMANCE , 2001 .

[25]  Robin R. Murphy,et al.  Human-robot interactions during the robot-assisted urban search and rescue response at the World Trade Center , 2003, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B.

[26]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Distributed coordination space: Toward a theory of distributed team process and performance , 2003 .

[27]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[28]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  Work Groups and Teams in Organizations , 2003 .

[29]  H. Tajfel,et al.  The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. , 2004 .

[30]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  My Pet Rock and Me: an Experimental Exploration of the Self Extension Concept , 2004 .

[31]  Christopher A. Miller,et al.  Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems , 2004, CACM.

[32]  R. Mayer,et al.  IN MANAGEMENT , 2006 .

[33]  Tammie D. Hertel,et al.  Team size and technology fit: participation, Awareness,and rapport in distributed teams , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[34]  Dustin K. Jundt,et al.  Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. , 2005, Annual review of psychology.

[35]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  The Peer-to-Peer Human-Robot Interaction Project , 2005 .

[36]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler? , 2005, 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[37]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication , 2005 .

[38]  Kevin C. Stagl,et al.  Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[39]  Martha Grabowski,et al.  Effects of introducing collaborative technology on communications in a distributed safety-critical system , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[40]  Regan L. Mandryk,et al.  Using psychophysiological techniques to measure user experience with entertainment technologies , 2006, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[41]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. , 2007, Psychological review.

[42]  G. Seijts,et al.  The development of collective efficacy in teams: a multilevel and longitudinal perspective. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

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

[44]  Joe C Magee,et al.  Power and the objectification of social targets. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[45]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  On Teams, Teamwork, and Team Performance: Discoveries and Developments , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[46]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Not All Trust Is Created Equal: Dispositional and History-Based Trust in Human-Automation Interactions , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[47]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Persuasive Robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior , 2009, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

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

[49]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  Designing Embodied Cues for Dialog with Robots , 2011, AI Mag..

[50]  Kristin E. Schaefer,et al.  Human-Animal Trust as an Analog for Human-Robot Trust: A Review of Current Evidence , 2012 .

[51]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Detecting the Trustworthiness of Novel Partners in Economic Exchange , 2012, Psychological science.

[52]  Richard Pak,et al.  Decision support aids with anthropomorphic characteristics influence trust and performance in younger and older adults , 2012, Ergonomics.

[53]  Santosh Mathan,et al.  Considering Etiquette in the Design of an Adaptive System , 2012 .

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

[55]  Joseph B. Lyons,et al.  Being Transparent about Transparency: A Model for Human-Robot Interaction , 2013, AAAI Spring Symposium: Trust and Autonomous Systems.

[56]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Team reactions to voiced agent instructions in a pervasive game , 2013, IUI '13.

[57]  Florian Jentsch,et al.  Building Appropriate Trust in Human-Robot Teams , 2013, AAAI Spring Symposium: Trust and Autonomous Systems.

[58]  Ana Paiva,et al.  The influence of empathy in human-robot relations , 2013, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[59]  B. Forkman,et al.  Dog and owner characteristics affecting the dog–owner relationship , 2014 .

[60]  Joseph B. Lyons,et al.  Invited Article: The Construct of Suspicion and How It Can Benefit Theories and Models in Organizational Science , 2014 .

[61]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  Human–Agent Teaming for Multirobot Control: A Review of Human Factors Issues , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems.

[62]  N. Epley,et al.  The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle , 2014 .

[63]  P. McGreevy,et al.  Current perspectives on attachment and bonding in the dog–human dyad , 2015, Psychology research and behavior management.

[64]  Masooda Bashir,et al.  Trust in Automation , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[65]  Deborah Lee,et al.  Measuring Individual Differences in the Perfect Automation Schema , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[66]  John D. Lee,et al.  Cooperation in Human-Agent Systems to Support Resilience , 2016, Hum. Factors.

[67]  Florian Jentsch,et al.  Human-animal teams as an analog for future human-robot teams , 2012 .

[68]  Joseph B. Lyons,et al.  Trust-Based Analysis of an Air Force Collision Avoidance System , 2016 .

[69]  Kerstin Eder,et al.  Believing in BERT: Using expressive communication to enhance trust and counteract operational error in physical Human-robot interaction , 2016, 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).