nach oben

International Journal of Social Robotics

Erschienen in:

09.10.2023

Unethical Robot Teammates: The Effects of Wrongdoer Identity and Entity Type on Whistleblowing and Intergroup Dynamics

verfasst von: Rachel Hoi Yan Au, Marlena R. Fraune, Ricarda Wullenkord

Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics | Ausgabe 9-10/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Group identity is important in moral judgments and decisions. People generally favor others who belong to their own group and are more reluctant to report their group members’ wrongdoings to authorities. The current research extends this idea to examine the impact of intergroup relationship on moral judgments in the context of human-robot interaction (HRI). Our results showed that although neither group identity (ingroup or outgroup) nor agent type (human or robot) of the wrongdoers influenced the likelihood to report the wrongdoings, attitudes towards the wrongdoer depended on their group identity. The wrongdoers were evaluated more negatively when they were an ingroup instead of an outgroup member, be it human or robot. Moreover, human wrongdoers were ascribed lesser mental capacities than other humans. The current work highlights the interplay of intergroup dynamics and HRI in the moral domain, providing practical implications for building more cooperative human-robot teams.

Vorheriger Artikel Do Emotional Robots Get More Help? How a Robots Emotions Affect Collaborators Willingness to Help

Nächster Artikel Never Trust Anything That Can Think for Itself, if You Can’t Control Its Privacy Settings: The Influence of a Robot’s Privacy Settings on Users’ Attitudes and Willingness to Self-disclose

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Although the numbers are too small to detect statistical significance, participants blocked or reported a non-wrongdoer robot (Ns = 7 and 9, respectively) more than they blocked or reported a non-wrongdoer human (Ns = 1 and 2, respectively). Participants more often blocked or reported the non-wrongdoer robot when a robot was the wrongdoer (N = 4 and 6, respectively) than when a human was at the wrongdoer (N = 3 and 3, respectively).

Wilhelm Hofmann DC, Wisneski MJ, Brandt, Skitka LJ (2014) Morality in everyday life. Science 345, 6202 (September 2014), 1340–1343. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251560

Farid Anvari M, Wenzel L, Woodyatt, Alexander Haslam S (2019) The social psychology of whistleblowing: An integrated model. Organizational Psychology Review 9, 1 (February 2019), 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619849085

Dungan JA, Young L, Waytz A (2019) The power of moral concerns in predicting whistleblowing decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 85, (November 2019), 103848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103848

Dungan J, Waytz A, Young L (2015) The psychology of whistleblowing. Current Opinion in Psychology 6, (December 2015), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.005

Waytz A, Dungan J, Young L (2013) The whistleblower’s dilemma and the fairness–loyalty tradeoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49, 6 (November 2013), 1027–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.002

Alexander Dyck A, Morse, Zingales L (2010) Who Blows the Whistle on Corporate Fraud? The Journal of Finance 65, 6 (2010), 2213–2253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01614.x

Marcia P, Miceli, Near JP (1988) Individual and Situational Correlates of Whistle-Blowing. Personnel Psychology 41, 2 (1988), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb02385.x

Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon (2000) Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. J Social Isssues 56, 1 (January 2000), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153

Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson (2011) Machine Ethics. Cambridge University Press

10.

Filipa Correia SF, Mascarenhas S, Gomes P, Arriaga I, Leite R, Prada FS, Melo, and Ana Paiva (2019). Exploring Prosociality in Human-Robot Teams. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673299

11.

Ana Paiva S, Mascarenhas S, Petisca F, Correia, Patrícia A-O (2018) Towards more humane machines: creating emotional social robots. New interdisciplinary landscapes in morality and emotion. Routledge

12.

Elaine Short J, Hart M, Vu, Scassellati B (2010) No fair‼ An interaction with a cheating robot. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2010.5453193

13.

Heather M, Gray K, Gray, Daniel MW (2007) Dimensions of Mind Perception. Science 315, 5812 (2007), 619. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475

14.

Stephen M, Fiore NL, Badler L, Boloni MA, Goodrich AS, Wu (2011) and Jessie Chen. Human-Robot Teams Collaborating Socially, Organizationally, and Culturally. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 55, 1 (September 2011), 465–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181311551096

15.

Malte F, Jung S, Šabanović F, Eyssel, Fraune M (2017) Robots in Groups and Teams. In Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, ACM, Portland Oregon USA, 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1145/3022198.3022659

16.

Iroju Olaronke O, Oluwaseun, Rhoda I (2017) State Of The Art: A Study of Human-Robot Interaction in Healthcare. IJIEEB 9, 3 (May 2017), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijieeb.2017.03.06

17.

Allison Sauppé and Bilge Mutlu (2015) The Social Impact of a Robot Co-Worker in Industrial Settings. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 3613–3622. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702181

18.

Friederike Eyssel and Dieta Kuchenbrandt (2012) Social categorization of social robots: Anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership: Social categorization and social robots. British Journal of Social Psychology 51, 4 (December 2012), 724–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02082.x

19.

Marlena R, Fraune (2020) Our Robots, Our Team: Robot Anthropomorphism Moderates Group Effects in Human–Robot Teams. Front. Psychol 11, (July 2020), 1275. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01275

20.

Marlena R, Fraune S, Sabanovic, Smith ER (2017) Teammates first: Favoring ingroup robots over outgroup humans. In 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, Lisbon, 1432–1437. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172492

21.

Marlena R, Fraune S, Šabanović, Smith ER (2020) Some are more equal than others: Ingroup robots gain some but not all benefits of team membership. Interaction Studies 21, 3 (December 2020), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18043.fra

22.

Hogg MA (2018) Chapter 5 Social Identity Theory. Stanford University Press. Retrieved August 24, 2021 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781503605626-007/html

23.

Henri Tajfel (1979) Individuals and groups in social psychology*. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 18, 2 (June 1979), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00324.x

24.

Henri Tajfel MG, Billig RP, Bundy, Flament C (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur J Soc Psychol 1(1971):149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202CrossRef

25.

Henri Tajfel, Turner JC (2004) The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In: Jost JT, Sidanius J (eds) Political psychology, 0 edn. Psychology Press, pp 276–293. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-16

26.

Marilynn B, Brewer (1979) In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin 86, 2 (1979), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307

27.

Constantine Sedikides J, Schopler, Insko CA (1998) Intergroup Cognition and Intergroup Behavior. Psychology Press

28.

Bernhard Leidner and Emanuele Castano (2012) Morality shifting in the context of intergroup violence: Morality shifting in intergroup violence. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol 42, 1 (February 2012), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.846

29.

Jesse Graham J, Haidt S, Koleva M, Motyl R, Iyer SP, Wojcik (2013) and Peter H. Ditto. Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Patricia Devine and Ashby Plant (eds.). Academic Press, 55–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4

30.

J. Haidt. (2007) The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology. Science 316, 5827 (May 2007), 998–1002. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137651

31.

Dominic J, Packer (2014) On not airing our dirty laundry: Intergroup contexts suppress ingroup criticism among strongly identified group members. Br. J. Soc. Psychol 53, 1 (March 2014), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12017

32.

Dieta Kuchenbrandt F, Eyssel S, Bobinger, and Maria Neufeld (2011) Minimal group - maximal effect? Evaluation and anthropomorphization of the Humanoid Robot NAO. In: Mutlu B, Bartneck C, Ham J, Evers V, Kanda T (eds) Social Robotics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25504-5_11CrossRef

33.

Brian Lickel DL, Hamilton G, Wieczorkowska A, Lewis SJ, Sherman, Neville Uhles A (2000) Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. J Pers Soc Psychol 78, 2 (2000), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223

34.

Marlena R, Fraune S, Sherrin S, Sabanović, Smith ER (2015) Rabble of Robots Effects: Number and Type of Robots Modulates Attitudes, Emotions, and Stereotypes. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ACM, Portland Oregon USA, 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696483

35.

Erin Cooley B, Keith Payne W, Cipolli C, Daryl Cameron A, Berger, Gray K (2017) The paradox of group mind: “People in a group” have more mind than “a group of people”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 146, 5 (May 2017), 691–699. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000293

36.

José M, Marques, Vincent Y, Yzerbyt (1988) The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members in inter-and intra-group situations. European Journal of Social Psychology 18, 3 (1988), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180308

37.

José M, Marques, Vincent Y, Yzerbyt, Jacques-Philippe L (1988) The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology 18, 1 (1988), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180102

38.

Grégory L, Monaco A, Piermattéo C, Guimelli, Andreea Ernst-Vintila (2011) Using the Black Sheep Effect to reveal normative stakes: The example of alcohol drinking contexts. European Journal of Social Psychology 41, 1 (2011), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.764

39.

Giovanni A, Travaglino D, Abrams GR, de Moura JM, Marques, Pinto IR (2014) How groups react to disloyalty in the context of intergroup competition: Evaluations of group deserters and defectors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 54, (September 2014), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.05.006

40.

Steain A, Stanton CJ, Catherine J, Stevens (2019) The black sheep effect: The case of the deviant ingroup robot. PLoS ONE 14, 10 (October 2019), e0222975. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222975

41.

José M, Marques, Paez D (1994) The ‘Black Sheep Effect’: Social Categorization, Rejection of Ingroup Deviates, and Perception of Group Variability. European Review of Social Psychology 5, 1 (January 1994), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000011

42.

Edward E, Jones GC, Wood, Quattrone GA (1981) Perceived Variability of Personal Characteristics in In-Groups and Out-Groups: The Role of Knowledge and Evaluation. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 7, 3 (September 1981), 523–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728173024

43.

Charles M, Judd, Park B (1988) Out-group homogeneity: Judgments of variability at the individual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 5 (1988), 778–788. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.778

44.

Zhu Q, Williams T, Jackson B, Wen R (2020) Blame-Laden Moral Rebukes and the Morally Competent Robot: A Confucian Ethical Perspective. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 5 (October 2020), 2511–2526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00246-w

45.

Paweł Łichocki A, Billard, Kahn PH (2011) The Ethical Landscape of Robotics. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 18, 1 (March 2011), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2011.940275

46.

Hayley Robinson BA, MacDonald N, Kerse, Broadbent E (2013) Suitability of healthcare robots for a dementia unit and suggested improvements. J Am Med Dir Assoc 14, 1 (January 2013), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2012.09.006

47.

Julie Carpenter (2016) Culture and Human-Robot Interaction in Militarized Spaces: a War Story. Routledge

48.

Ronald E, Giachetti V, Marcelli J, Cifuentes, Rojas JA (2013) An agent-based simulation model of human-robot team performance in military environments. Syst. Engin 16, 1 (March 2013), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21216

49.

Guy Hoffman and Cynthia Breazeal (2004) Collaboration in Human-Robot Teams. In AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Chicago, Illinois. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-6434

50.

Harry C, Triandis (2001) Individualism-Collectivism and Personality. Journal of Personality 69, 6 (December 2001), 907–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.696169

51.

Daphna Oyserman (1993) The Lens of Personhood: Viewing the Self and Others in a Multicultural Society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 5 (1993), 993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.993

52.

Daphna Oyserman HM, Coon, Kemmelmeier M (2002) Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 128, 1 (2002), 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3

53.

Dingjun Li PL, Patrick Rau, Li Y (2010) A Cross-cultural Study: Effect of Robot Appearance and Task. Int J of Soc Robotics 2, 2 (June 2010), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0056-9

54.

Patrick Rau PL, Li Y, Li D (2009) Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 2 (March 2009), 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.025

55.

Jasmin Bernotat and Friederike Eyssel (2018) Can(‘t) Wait to Have a Robot at Home? - Japanese and German Users’ Attitudes Toward Service Robots in Smart Homes. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2018.8525659

Titel: Unethical Robot Teammates: The Effects of Wrongdoer Identity and Entity Type on Whistleblowing and Intergroup Dynamics
verfasst von: Rachel Hoi Yan Au
Marlena R. Fraune
Ricarda Wullenkord
Publikationsdatum: 09.10.2023
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics / Ausgabe 9-10/2023
Print ISSN: 1875-4791
Elektronische ISSN: 1875-4805
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01057-2

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9-10/2023

Correction to: Integrative Robo-Ethics: Uncovering Roboticists’ Attitudes to Ethics and Moving Forward

Perceptions of Assistive Robots at Work: An Experimental Approach to Social Influence

Do Emotional Robots Get More Help? How a Robots Emotions Affect Collaborators Willingness to Help

Ethical Design of Social Robots in Aged Care: A Literature Review Using an Ethics of Care Perspective

Using Socially Assistive Robots in Speech-Language Therapy for Children with Language Impairments

Ethical Acceptability of Robot-Assisted Therapy for Children with Autism: A Survey From a Developing Country

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten