Based on social exchange theory, this study investigates the effects of robots’ fairness and social status on humans’ reward-punishment behaviors and trust in human-robot interactions.
Background
In human-robot teamwork, robots show fair behaviors, dedication (altruistic unfair behaviors), and selfishness (self-interested unfair behaviors), but few studies have discussed the effects of these robots’ behaviors on teamwork.
Method
This study adopts a 3 (the independent variable is the robot’s fairness: self-interested unfair behaviors, fair behaviors, and altruistic unfair behaviors) × 3 (the moderator variable is the robot’s social status: superior, peer, and subordinate) experimental design. Each participant and a robot completed the experimental task together through a computer.
Results
When robots have different social statuses, the more altruistic the fairness of the robot, the more reward behaviors, the fewer punishment behaviors, and the higher human–robot trust of humans. Robots’ higher social status weakens the influence of their fairness on humans’ punishment behaviors. Human–robot trust will increase humans’ reward behaviors and decrease humans’ punishment behaviors. Humans’ reward-punishment behaviors will increase repaired human-robot trust.
Conclusion
Robots’ fairness has a significant impact on humans’ reward-punishment behaviors and trust. Robots’ social status moderates the effect of their fair behavior on humans’ punishment behavior. There is an interaction between humans’ reward-punishment behaviors and trust.
Application
The study can help to better understand the interaction mechanism of the human–robot team and can better serve the management and cooperation of the human–robot team by appropriately adjusting the robots’ fairness and social status.
AdamsJ. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 2(4), 267–299. Academic Press.
2.
BartneckC.ReichenbachJ.CarpenterJ. (2008). The carrot and the stick: The role of praise and punishment in human–robot interaction. Interaction Studies, 9(2), 179–203. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.9.2.03bar
3.
BerscheidE. S.ReganP. C. (2016). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. Psychology Press.
4.
BladerS. L.ChenY. R. (2011). What influences how higher–status people respond to lower–status others? Effects of procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and concerns about status. Organization Science, 22(4), 1040–1060. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0558
5.
BroadbentE.StaffordR.MacDonaldB. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(4), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369–009–0030–6
6.
ChengX.ZhengL.LiL.GuoX.WangQ.LordA.YangG. (2015). Power to punish norm violations affects the neural processes of fairness–related decision making. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 344. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.0034.
7.
ClaureH.JungM. (2021, March). Fairness considerations for enhanced team collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 598–600. ACM.
8.
ClaureH.ChenY.ModiJ.JungM.NikolaidisS. (2019). Reinforcement learning with fairness constraints for resource distribution in human–robot teams.
9.
ClaureH.ChenY.ModiJ.JungM.NikolaidisS. (2020). Multi–armed bandits with fairness constraints for distributing resources to human teammates. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 299–308. ACM.
10.
ColquittJ. A.ZipayK. P. (2015). Justice, fairness, and employee reactions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 75–99. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111457.
11.
CookK. S.CheshireC.RiceE. R.NakagawaS. (2013). Social exchange theory. In Handbook of social psychology, 61–88. Springer.
12.
DeboveS.BaumardN.AndréJ. B. (2016). Models of the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game: a review and classification. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(3), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.01.001
13.
EdwardsA.EdwardsC.WestermanD.SpenceP. R. (2019). Initial expectations, interactions, and beyond with social robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 308–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.042.
14.
ElM.ElmarzouqiN.LapayreJ. C. (2014). Fairness Properties for Collaborative Work Using Human–Computer Interactions and Human–Robot Interactions Based Environment: “Let Us Be Fair”. In Proceedings of International Conference on Distributed, Ambient, and Pervasive Interactions, 319–328. Springer.
15.
EmersonR. (1962). Power–dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.
FerrariF.PaladinoM. P.JettenJ. (2016). Blurring human–machine distinctions: Anthropomorphic appearance in social robots as a threat to human distinctiveness. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369–016–0338–y
18.
FoxJ.GambinoA. (2021). Relationship development with humanoid social robots: Applying interpersonal theories to human–robot interaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(5), 294–299. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0181
19.
FunkM.SeibtJ.CoeckelberghM. (2018). Why do/should we build robots? – Summary of a plenary discussion session. In CoeckelberghMLohJFunkMSeibtJNørskovM (Eds.), Envisioning Robots in Society–Power, Politics, and Public Space, Proceedings of robophilosophy 2018/TRANSOR 2018. February 14–17, 2018, University of Vienna, Austria. (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 311), 369–384. IOS Press.
20.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y.De VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A meta–analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Human Factors, 53, 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254
21.
HarrisAYoungAHughsonLGreenDDoanSNHughsonEReedCL (2020) Perceived relative social status and cognitive load influence acceptance of unfair offers in the Ultimatum Game. PLOS ONE15(1): Article e0227717. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227717
22.
HindsP. J.RobertsT. L.JonesH. (2004). Whose job is it anyway? A study of human–robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human–Computer Interaction, 19(1–2), 151–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_7
23.
HomansG. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. Harcourt, Brace & World.
24.
KeijsersM.KazmiH.EysselF.BartneckC. (2021). Teaching robots a lesson: determinants of robot punishment. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(1), 41–54. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00608-w.
25.
KhavasZ. R. (2021). A review on trust in human–robot interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.10045.
26.
KimY.MutluB. (2014). How social distance shapes human–robot interaction. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 72(12), 783–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.05.005
27.
KwakS. S.KimY.KimE.ShinC.ChoK. (2013, August). What makes people empathize with an emotional robot? The impact of agency and physical embodiment on human empathy for a robot. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 180–185. IEEE.
28.
LeeM. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society, 5(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756684
29.
LucasG. M.BobergJ.TraumD.ArtsteinR.GratchJ.GainerA.NakanoM. (2018, February). Getting to know each other: The role of social dialogue in recovery from errors in social robots. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, 344–351. ACM.
30.
MalleB. F.ScheutzM. (2019). Learning how to behave: moral competence for social robots. In BendelO. (Eds.). Handbuch Maschinenethik [Handbook of Machine Ethics]. Springer VS, 255–278.
31.
MeierL. L.SemmerN. K.HupfeldJ. (2009). The impact of unfair treatment on depressive mood: The moderating role of self–esteem level and self–esteem instability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(5), 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/10.1177/0146167208331337
32.
RubinR. S.BommerW. H.BachrachD. G. (2010). Operant leadership and employee citizenship: A question of trust?The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 400–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.005
33.
SchaeferK. E. (2013). The perception and measurement of human–robot trust (Doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida.
34.
SeboS. S.KrishnamurthiP.ScassellatiB. (2019). “I Don’t Believe You”: Investigating the Effects of Robot Trust Violation and Repair. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), 57–65. IEEE.
35.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
36.
SrinivasanV.TakayamaL. (2016). Help me please: Robot politeness strategies for soliciting help from humans. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4945–4955. CHI.
37.
StrohkorbS.TraegerM.JungM.ScassellatiB. (2018). The ripple effects of vulnerability: The effects of a robot’s vulnerable behavior on trust in human–robot teams. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 178–186. ACM.
38.
WhitesideD. B.BarclayL. J. (2018). When wanting to be fair is not enough: The effects of depletion and self–appraisal gaps on fair behavior. Journal of Management, 44(8), 3311–3335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316672531
39.
WijnenL.CoenenJ.GrzybB. (2017). “It’s not my Fault!” Investigating the effects of the deceptive behaviour of a humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-–Robot Interaction, 321-–322. ACM.
40.
YouS.RobertLP (2017). Teaming up with robots: An IMOI (Inputs–Mediators–Outputs–Inputs) framework of human–robot teamwork, International Journal of Robotic Engineering,(IJRE), 2(3).
