Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective:

The authors investigate whether nonhuman agents, such as computers or robots, produce a social conformity effect in human operators and examine to what extent potential conformist behavior varies as a function of the human-likeness of the group members and the type of task that has to be performed.

Background:

People conform due to normative and/or informational motivations in human–human interactions, and conformist behavior is modulated by factors related to the individual as well as factors associated with the group, context, and culture. Studies have yet to examine whether nonhuman agents also induce social conformity.

Method:

Participants were assigned to a computer, robot, or human group and completed both a social and analytical task with the respective group.

Results:

Conformity measures (percentage of times participants answered in line with agents on critical trials) subjected to a 3 × 2 mixed ANOVA showed significantly higher conformity rates for the analytical versus the social task as well as a modulation of conformity depending of the perceived agent–task fit.

Conclusion:

Findings indicate that nonhuman agents were able to exert a social conformity effect, which was modulated further by the perceived match between agent and task type. Participants conformed to comparable degrees with agents during the analytical task but conformed significantly more strongly on the social task as the group’s human-likeness increased.

Application:

Results suggest that users may react differently to the influence of nonhuman agent groups with the potential for variability in conformity depending on the domain of the task.

Keywords

compliance and reliance trust in automation human–automation interaction decision making social psychology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrams

Wetherell

Cochrane

Hogg

M. A.

Turner

J. C.

(1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorisation and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarisation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97–119.

Allen

V. L.

(1965). Situational factors in conformity. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 133–175). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Alquist

J. L.

Ainsworth

S. E.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2013). Determined to conform: Disbelief in free will increases conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 80–86.

Andrist

Spannan

Mutlu

(2013, March). Rhetorical robots: Making robots more effective speakers using linguistic cues of expertise. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 341–348). Tokyo: IEEE Press.

Asch

(1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In Guetzkow

(Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Oxford, UK: Carnegie Press.

Asch

(1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70.

Baron-Cohen

Wheelwright

Hill

Raste

Plumb

(2001). The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(2), 241–251.

Beckner

Rácz

Hay

Brandsetter

Bartneck

(2016). Participants conform to humans but not to humanoid robots in an English past tense formation task. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(2), 158–179.

Berns

G. S.

Capra

C. M.

Moore

Noussair

(2010). Neural mechanisms of the influence of popularity on adolescent ratings of music. NeuroImage, 49, 2687–2696.

10.

Bond

Smith

P. B.

(1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137.

11.

Brandstetter

Rácz

Beckner

Sandoval

E. B.

Hay

Bartneck

(2014, September). A peer pressure experiment: Recreation of the Asch conformity experiment with robots. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2014), 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (pp. 1335–1340). Chicago: IEEE.

12.

Brown

(1958). Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215808416249

13.

Chen

Tong

Guan

Zhou

(2012). ERP correlates of social conformity in a line judgment task. BMC Neuroscience, 13(1), 43.

14.

Cohen

J. B.

Golden

(1972). Informational social influence and product evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 54–59.

15.

Cooper

H. M.

(1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 131–146.

16.

Demir

McNeese

N. J.

Cooke

N. J.

(2018). Team synchrony in human-autonomy teaming. In Chen

(Eds.), Advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems—Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International Conference on Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems (pp. 303–312). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.

17.

Deuker

Müller

A. R.

Montag

Markett

Reuter

Fell

Trautner

Axmacher

(2013). Playing nice: A multi-methodological study on the effects of social conformity on memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 79. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00079

18.

Deutsch

Gerrard

H. B.

(1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.

19.

Dijkstra

J. J.

Liebrand

W. B. G.

Timminga

(1998). Persuasiveness of expert systems. Behavior & Information Technology, 17(3), 155–163.

20.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Pierce

L. G.

Beck

H. P.

Dawe

L. A.

Anderson

B. W.

(2001). Predicting misuse and disuse of combat identification systems. Military Psychology, 13(3), 147–164.

21.

Edelson

Sharot

Dolan

R. J.

Dudai

(2011). Following the crowd: Brain substrates of long-term memory conformity. Science, 333, 108–111.

22.

Gray

H. M.

Gray

Wegner

D. M.

(2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619.

23.

Hertz

Wiese

(2016). Influence of agent type and task ambiguity on conformity in social decision making. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 313–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601071

24.

Hoyt

C. L.

Blascovich

Swinth

K. R.

(2003). Social inhibition in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(2), 183–195.

25.

Klucharev

Hytönen

Rijpkema

Smidts

Fernández

(2009). Reinforcement learning signal predicts social conformity. Neuron, 61, 140–151.

26.

Levine

J. M.

(1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In Paulus

P. B.

(Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 187–231). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

27.

Mason

M. F.

Dyer

Norton

M. I.

(2009). Neural mechanisms of social influence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 152–159.

28.

McKelvey

Kerr

N. H.

(1988). Differences in conformity among friends and strangers. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 759–762.

29.

Moore

H. T.

(1921). The comparative influence of majority and expert opinion. American Journal of Psychology, 32, 16–20.

30.

Nass

Moon

(2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153

31.

Oppenheimer

D. M.

Kelso

(2015). Information processing as a paradigm for decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015148

32.

Riether

Hegel

Wrede

Horstmann

(2012, March). Social facilitation with social robots? In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 41–48). New York, NY: ACM.

33.

Rosander

Eriksson

(2012). Conformity on the internet—The role of task difficulty and gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1587–1595.

34.

Salas

Cooke

N. J.

Rosen

M. A.

(2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288457

35.

Schnuerch

Gibbons

(2014). A review of neurocognitive mechanisms of social conformity. Social Psychology, 45(6), 466–478.

36.

Sherif

(1936). The psychology of social norms. New York, NY: Harper.

37.

Smith

M. A.

Allaham

M. M.

Wiese

(2016, September). Trust in automated agents is modulated by the combined influence of agent and task type. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 206–210). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

38.

Tanford

Penrod

(1984). Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 189–225.

39.

Todorov

(2016). Design of a highly biomimetic anthropomorphic robotic hand towards artificial limb regeneration. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (pp. 3485–3492). Stockholm: IEEE Press.

40.

Wiegmann

D. A.

Rich

Zhang

(2001). The effects of aid reliability on users’ trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2(4), 352–367.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB

Under Pressure: Examining Social Conformity With Computer and Robot Groups

Abstract

Objective:

Background:

Method:

Results:

Conclusion:

Application:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material