Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
Volume 2013, Article ID 263721, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/263721
Research Article

Effects of a Social Robot's Autonomy and Group Orientation on Human Decision-Making

Department of Industrial Engineering, Institute of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Received 7 March 2013; Accepted 31 October 2013

Academic Editor: Zhiwen Yu

Copyright © 2013 Pei-Luen Patrick Rau et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. P. L. P. Rau, D. Li, and Y. Li, “A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 175–186, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. A. Powers and S. Kiesler, “The advisor robot: tracing people's mental model from a robot's physical attributes,” in Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2006), pp. 218–225, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, March 2006. View at Scopus
  3. T. Kaupp and A. Makarenko, “Measuring human-robot team effectiveness to determine an appropriate autonomy level,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA '08), pp. 2146–2151, Pasadena, Calif, USA, May 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. F. Heger and S. Singh, “Sliding autonomy for complex coordinated multi-robot tasks: analysis & experiments,” in Proceedings of the Robotics: Systems and Science, August 2006.
  5. H. Tajfel, M. Billig, R. Bundy, and C. Flament, “Social categorization and intergroup behavior,” European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 149–178, 1971. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. B. Mutlu, S. Osman, J. Forlizzi, J. Hodgins, and S. Kiesler, “Task structure and user attributes as elements of human-robot interaction design,” in Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN '06), pp. 74–79, Hatfield, UK, September 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. D. S. Syrdal, K. Dautenhahn, S. N. Woods, M. L. Walters, and K. L. Koay, “Looking good? Appearance preferences and robot personality inferences at zero acquaintance,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium, pp. 86–92, Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive Robotics, Stanford, Calif, USA, March 2007. View at Scopus
  8. W. Lin, P. P. Rau, V. Evers, B. Robinson, and P. Hinds, “Responsiveness to robots: effects of ingroup orientation & communication style on HRI in China,” in Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '09), pp. 247–248, Los Angeles, Calif, USA, March 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. V. Evers, H. C. Maldonado, T. L. Brodecki, and P. J. Hinds, “Relational versus group self-construal: untangling the role of national culture in HRI,” in Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '08), pp. 255–262, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. M. A. Goodrich and A. C. Schultz, “Human-robot interaction: a survey,” Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 203–275, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. T. B. Sheridan and W. L. Verplank, Human and Computer Control for Undersea Teleoperators, MIT Man-Machine Systems Laboratory, 1978.
  12. B. Sellner, F. W. Heger, L. M. Hiatt, R. Simmons, and S. Singh, “Coordinated multiagent teams and sliding autonomy for large-scale assembly,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 94, no. 7, pp. 1425–1444, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. H. C. Triandis, R. Bontempo, M. J. Villareal, M. Asai, and N. Lucca, “Individualism and collectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 323–338, 1988. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. W. Gudykunst and M. Bond, “Intergroup relations across cultures,” in Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 3, pp. 119–161, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  15. T. Yamagishi, N. Jin, and A. S. Miller, “In-group bias and culture of collectivism,” Asian Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 315–328, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. A. M. Ahmed, “Group identity, social distance and intergroup bias,” Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 324–337, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. M. B. Brewer, “In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 307–324, 1979. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. Y. Chen, J. Brockner, and X. Chen, “Individual-collective primacy and ingroup favoritism: enhancement and protection effects,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 482–491, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. R. Kramer and L. Goldman, “Helping the group or helping yourself? Social motives and group identity in resource dilemmas,” in DSocial Dilemmas: Perspectives on Individuals and Groups, A. Schroeder, Ed., pp. 49–67, Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, Conn, USA, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  20. D. J. Terry and M. A. Hogg, “Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: a role for group identification,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 776–793, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. L. Wang, P. P. Rau, V. Evers, B. K. Robinson, and P. Hinds, “When in Rome: the role of culture and context in adherence to robot recommendations,” in Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '10), pp. 359–366, Osaka, Japan, March 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. L. Wheeless and J. Grotz, “The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure,” Human Communication Research, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 250–257, 1977. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, and H. E. Sypher, Communication Research Measures: A Sourcebook, The Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA, 1994.
  24. D. Berlo, J. Lemert, and R. Mertz, “Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 563–576, 1969. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  25. J. McCroskey and T. Young, “Ethos and credibility: the construct and its measurement after three decades,” Communication Studies, vol. 32, pp. 24–34, 1981. View at Google Scholar
  26. S. Hart and L. Staveland, “Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research,” in Human Mental Workload, vol. 1, pp. 139–183, 1988. View at Google Scholar
  27. R. Parasuraman, T. B. Sheridan, and C. D. Wickens, “Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs,” Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 140–160, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  28. A. Freedy, E. DeVisser, G. Weltman, and N. Coeyman, “Measurement of trust in human-robot collaboration,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems (CTS '07), pp. 106–114, Orlando, Fla, USA, May 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. J. Lee and N. Moray, “Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems,” Ergonomics, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1243–1270, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. R. Parasuraman, T. B. Sheridan, and C. D. Wickens, “A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics A, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 286–297, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. C. Breazeal and M. Siegel, Persuasive robotics: how robots change our minds [M.S. thesis], Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2009.
  32. C. D. Kidd and C. Breazeal, “Human-robot interaction experiments: lessons learned,” in Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour (AISB '05), pp. 141–142, April 2005. View at Scopus
  33. A. Steinfeld, T. Fong, and D. Kaber, “Common metrics for human-robot interaction,” in Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '06), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2006.
  34. Department of Defense, “Chapter 16—sea survival,” in US Army Survival Manual: FM 21-76, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  35. H. C. Kraemer and S. Thiemann, How Many Subjects? Statistical Power Analysis in Research, Sage, London, UK, 1987.
  36. M. Madsen and S. Gregor, “Measuring human-computer trust,” in Proceedings of the 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, Australia, 2000.
  37. Y. M. Xiao, Evaluation of mental workload and its application [Ph.D. thesis], Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, 2005 (Chinese).
  38. T. Nomura, T. Suzuki, T. Kanda, and K. Kato, “Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots,” Interaction Studies, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 437–454, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  39. M. B. Brewer and Y. Chen, “Where (Who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism,” Psychological Review, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 133–151, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. T. Nomura, T. Kanda, T. Suzuki, and K. Kato, “Prediction of human behavior in human—robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 442–451, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. C. Bartneck, T. Suzuki, T. Kanda, and T. Nomura, “The influence of people's culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots,” AI and Society, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 217–230, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. C. Sedikides and M. B. Brewer, “Individual self, relational self, and collective self: partners, opponents, or strangers?” in Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self, C. Sedikides and M. B. Brewer, Eds., Psychology Press, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  43. C. F. DiSalvo, F. Gemperle, J. Forlizzi, and S. Kiesler, “All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads,” in Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, pp. 321–326, London, UK, June 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. A. Aron, E. N. Aron, and D. Smollan, “Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 596–612, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. J. Nunally and I. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 1978.
  46. K. P. Weinfurt, “Multivariate analysis of variance,” in Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics, L. G. Grimm and P. R. Yarnold, Eds., pp. 245–276, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  47. J. P. Boldizar and D. M. Messick, “Intergroup fairness biases: is ours the fairer sex?” Social Justice Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 95–111, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. M. Foddy, M. J. Platow, and T. Yamagishi, “Group-based trust in strangers: the role of stereotypes and expectations,” Psychological Science, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 419–422, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. H. R. Markus and S. Kitayama, “Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation,” Psychological Review, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 224–253, 1991. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus