Membership Preferences in Human-Robot Teams

Although groups of robots are expected to interact with groups of humans in the near future, research related to teams of humans and robots is still scarce. This paper contributes to the study of humanrobot teams by describing the development of two autonomous robotic partners and by investigating how humans choose robots to partner with in a multi-party game context. Our work concerns the successful development of two autonomous robots that are able to interact with a group of two humans in the execution of a task for social and entertainment purposes. The creation of these two characters was motivated by psychological research on learning goal theory, according to which we interpret and approach a given task differently depending on our learning goal. Thus, we developed two robotic characters implemented in two robots: Emys (a competitive robot, based on characteristics related to performance-orientation goals) and Glin (a relationship-driven robot, based on characteristics related The present paper is an extended version of the work in the article“Groups of humans and robots: Understanding membership preferences and team formation”, published in the Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (2017), with the DOI 10.15607/RSS.2017.XIII.024. The present version includes a detailed description of the autonomous robots’ development, not included in the aforementioned article. It also includes a significantly improved discussion of our results in terms of human-robot collaboration. Filipa Correia · Tiago Ribeiro · Francisco S. Melo · Ana Paiva INESC-ID & Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa Avenida Professor Cavaco Silva, Edif́ıcio IST 2744-016 Porto Salvo, Portugal Tel.: +351-214233508, Fax: +351-213145843 E-mail: filipacorreia@tecnico.ulisboa.pt Sofia Petisca · Patŕıcia Alves-Oliveira Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, ISCTE-IUL (CIS-IUL) & INESC-ID to learning-orientation goals). In our study, a group of four (two humans and two autonomous robots) engaged in a card game for social and entertainment purposes. Our study yields several important conclusions regarding groups of humans and robots. (1) When a partner is chosen without previous partnering experience, people tend to prefer robots with relationship-driven characteristics as their partners compared with competitive robots. (2) After some partnering experience has been gained, the choice becomes less clear, and additional driving factors emerge as follows: (2a) participants with higher levels of competitiveness (personal characteristics) tend to prefer Emys, whereas those with lower levels prefer Glin, and (2b) the choice of which robot to partner with also depends on team performance, with the winning team being the preferred choice.

[1]  Selma Sabanovic,et al.  Threatening Flocks and Mindful Snowflakes: How Group Entitativity Affects Perceptions of Robots , 2017, 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI.

[2]  David Lee,et al.  The influence of subjects' personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment , 2005, ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005..

[3]  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).

[4]  Filipa Correia,et al.  A Social Robot as a Card Game Player , 2021, AIIDE.

[5]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Effects of anticipatory action on human-robot teamwork: Efficiency, fluency, and perception of team , 2007, 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[6]  Robert D. Smither,et al.  The Nature of Competitiveness: The Development and Validation of the Competitiveness Index , 1992 .

[7]  Susan S. Hendrick.  A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. , 1988 .

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

[9]  C. Nass,et al.  Machines and Mindlessness , 2000 .

[10]  Bruce Randall Donald,et al.  Moving furniture with teams of autonomous robots , 1995, Proceedings 1995 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Human Robot Interaction and Cooperative Robots.

[11]  Selma Sabanovic,et al.  Three's company, or a crowd?: The effects of robot number and behavior on HRI in Japan and the USA , 2015, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[12]  Filipa Correia,et al.  Just follow the suit! Trust in human-robot interactions during card game playing , 2016, 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[13]  Matthew L. Ginsberg,et al.  GIB: Imperfect Information in a Computationally Challenging Game , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[14]  Wan Ling Chang,et al.  The effect of group size on people's attitudes and cooperative behaviors toward robots in interactive gameplay , 2012, 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[15]  Adriana Tapus,et al.  User—robot personality matching and assistive robot behavior adaptation for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy , 2008, Intell. Serv. Robotics.

[16]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Improved human-robot team performance using Chaski, A human-inspired plan execution system , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[17]  Dana Kulic,et al.  Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

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

[19]  John D. Worth,et al.  A Modern Approach , 2005 .

[20]  Ilan Yaniv,et al.  Individual and Group Behavior in the Ultimatum Game: Are Groups More “Rational” Players? , 1998 .

[21]  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).

[22]  Andrea Lockerd Thomaz,et al.  Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork , 2005, 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[23]  Christopher O. L. H. Porter,et al.  Goal orientation: effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams. , 2005, The Journal of applied psychology.

[24]  K. M. Lee,et al.  Can robots manifest personality? : An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human-robot interaction , 2006 .

[25]  Alessandro Saffiotti,et al.  Symbiotic Robotic Systems: Humans, Robots, and Smart Environments , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

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

[27]  Jan Kedzierski,et al.  EMYS—Emotive Head of a Social Robot , 2013, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[28]  S. Holm.  A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[29]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Engaging robots: easing complex human-robot teamwork using backchanneling , 2013, CSCW.

[30]  Nathan R. Sturtevant,et al.  An Analysis of UCT in Multi-Player Games , 2008, J. Int. Comput. Games Assoc..

[31]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[32]  Carol S. Dweck,et al.  Motivational processes affecting learning. , 1986 .

[33]  B. Gates.  A robot in every home. , 2007, Scientific American.

[34]  M. Mendelson,et al.  Measuring friendship quality in late adolescents and young adults: McGill Friendship Questionnaires. , 1999 .