Strategies for the Inclusion of Human Members within Human-Robot Teams

Team member inclusion is vital in collaborative teams. In this work, we explore two strategies to increase the inclusion of human team members in a human-robot team: 1) giving a person in the group a specialized role (the 'robot liaison') and 2) having the robot verbally support human team members. In a human subjects experiment (N = 26 teams, 78 participants), groups of three participants completed two rounds of a collaborative task. In round one, two participants (ingroup) completed a task with a robot in one room, and one participant (outgroup) completed the same task with a robot in a different room. In round two, all three participants and one robot completed a second task in the same room, where one participant was designated as the robot liaison. During round two, the robot verbally supported each participant 6 times on average. Results show that participants with the robot liaison role had a lower perceived group inclusion than the other group members. Additionally, when outgroup members were the robot liaison, the group was less likely to incorporate their ideas into the group's final decision. In response to the robot's supportive utterances, outgroup members, and not ingroup members, showed an increase in the proportion of time they spent talking to the group. Our results suggest that specialized roles may hinder human team member inclusion, whereas supportive robot utterances show promise in encouraging contributions from individuals who feel excluded.

[1]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Using Robots to Moderate Team Conflict: The Case of Repairing Violations , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[2]  Solace Shen,et al.  Micbot: A Peripheral Robotic Object to Shape Conversational Dynamics and Team Performance , 2019, 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[3]  A. Rokach Leadership and Loneliness , 2014 .

[4]  Steven B. Wolff,et al.  Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader: A multi‐level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on team performance , 2008 .

[5]  C. Oswick,et al.  Discourses of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion: Trenchant Formulations or Transient Fashions? , 2014 .

[6]  J. K. Murnighan,et al.  Demographic Diversity and Faultlines: The Compositional DYnamics of Organizational Groups , 1998 .

[7]  A. Cooper,et al.  A Psychometric Analysis of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Short Form (TEIQue–SF) Using Item Response Theory , 2010, Journal of personality assessment.

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

[9]  Frederick A. Miller,et al.  Strategic Culture Change: The Door to Achieving High Performance and Inclusion , 1998 .

[10]  R. Philipchalk,et al.  The development of an abbreviated form of the revised Eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQR-A) : its use among students in England, Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia , 1992 .

[11]  Meghna Sabharwal Is Diversity Management Sufficient? Organizational Inclusion to Further Performance , 2014 .

[12]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Robot moderation of a collaborative game: Towards socially assistive robotics in group interactions , 2017, 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[13]  Brian Scassellati,et al.  The Ripple Effects of Vulnerability: The Effects of a Robot’s Vulnerable Behavior on Trust in Human-Robot Teams , 2018, 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[14]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  A Bayesian Theory of Mind Approach to Nonverbal Communication , 2019, 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[15]  Ana Paiva,et al.  Using Empathy to Improve Human-Robot Relationships , 2010, HRPR.

[16]  Timothy W. Bickmore,et al.  Collaborative User Responses in Multiparty Interaction with a Couples Counselor Robot , 2019, 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[17]  G. Hertel,et al.  Many cheers make light the work: how social support triggers process gains in teams , 2011 .

[18]  Michàlle E. Mor Barak,et al.  Understanding of Diversity and Inclusion in a Perceived Homogeneous Culture: A Study of Organizational Commitment and Job Performance Among Korean Employees , 2008 .

[19]  Brian Scassellati,et al.  Improving human-human collaboration between children with a social robot , 2016, 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[20]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  > Replace This Line with Your Paper Identification Number (double-click Here to Edit) < 2 , 2022 .

[21]  M. Stubbe Are you listening? Cultural influences on the use of supportive verbal feedback in conversation , 1998 .

[22]  H. Tajfel Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations , 1982 .

[23]  K. V. D. Zee,et al.  Inclusion: Conceptualization and measurement , 2014 .

[24]  Gangaram Singh,et al.  Inclusion and Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for Future Research , 2011 .

[25]  Yarrow Dunham,et al.  Representing ‘Us’ and ‘Them’: Building Blocks of Intergroup Cognition , 2015 .

[26]  Petr Slovák,et al.  “Stop. I See a Conflict Happening.” A Robot Mediator for Young Children’s Interpersonal Conflict Resolution , 2018, 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[27]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  Designing persuasive robots: How robots might persuade people using vocal and nonverbal cues , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[28]  Ana Paiva,et al.  Group-based Emotions in Teams of Humans and Robots , 2018, 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[29]  Filipa Correia,et al.  Friends or Foes? Socioemotional Support and Gaze Behaviors in Mixed Groups of Humans and Robots , 2018, 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[30]  S. Carey,et al.  Consequences of "minimal" group affiliations in children. , 2011, Child development.

[31]  Steven J. Stroessner,et al.  The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS): Development and Validation , 2017, 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI.

[32]  Ali Meghdari,et al.  Clinical Application of a Humanoid Robot in Pediatric Cancer Interventions , 2016, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[33]  Jürgen Pripfl,et al.  Lessons learned from the deployment of a long-term autonomous robot as companion in physical therapy for older adults with dementia a mixed methods study , 2016, 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[34]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  Interactive Robots as Social Partners and Peer Tutors for Children: A Field Trial , 2004, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[35]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Effect of a robot on user perceptions , 2004, 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566).

[36]  Nigel G. Ward,et al.  Prosodic features which cue back-channel responses in English and Japanese , 2000 .