What’s in a Name? Implications of AI Roles and Mind Perception for Human-AI Teams

Abstract

Objective

We examine how artificial intelligence (AI) roles (teammate, support, tool) shape acceptance via the mind perception subdimensions of agency and conscious experience.

Background

Adoption of the term AI “teammate” has outpaced evidence of the term’s impact. Such reframing does not guarantee that the benefits of human teamwork will extend to human-AI teams. Understanding the potential benefits and risks of reframing AI as a teammate is essential for guiding effective integration.

Methods

Across three studies—one survey of employees who use AI at least weekly (Study 1) and two experimental vignette designs (Studies 2-3)—we examined the relationship between AI roles and acceptance using both technology-centered (technology acceptance model, cognitive trust) and human-centered (affective trust) perspectives. This design distinguished role perception from presentation (Study 1 versus Studies 2-3).

Results

As hypothesized, “teammate” was associated with higher AI mind perception relative to less collaborative roles. While perceiving AI as a teammate showed only positive relationships with acceptance, presenting AI as a teammate was negatively related to some acceptance outcomes after controlling for mind perception. Further, agency and conscious experience were differentially related to technology- and human-centered outcomes, supporting the importance of integrating both perspectives.

Conclusion

Shifting AI roles from tool to teammate may enhance acceptance via mind perception, but forcing labels may have hidden costs.

Applications

Collaborative AI roles such as “teammate” should be strategically implemented and aligned with intended mind perception and outcomes. Intermediate labels such as “support” may be more appropriate for describing the roles of today’s AI systems.

Keywords

teams groups organizational psychology human-computer interaction technology acceptance trust

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189

Belmi

Schroeder

(2021). Human “resources”? Objectification at work. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 384–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000254

Binder

(2024, May 14). “AI Teammate” announced at Google I/O 2024: Your new AI-powered co-worker friend. Mashable. https://mashable.com/article/google-io-2024-ai-teammate

Breazeal

(2003). Toward sociable robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Socially Interactive Robots, 42(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373-1

Brynjolfsson

McAfee

(2017). Artificial intelligence, for real. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/07/the-business-of-artificial-intelligence

Burgoon

J. K.

Bonito

J. A.

Bengtsson

Cederberg

Lundeberg

Allspach

(2000). Interactivity in human-computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(6), 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00029-7

Carter-Browne

B. M.

Paletz

S. B. F.

Campbell

S. G.

Vahlkamp

S. H.

Schwartz

O’Rourke

(2021). There is no “AI” in teams: A multidisciplinary framework for AIs to work in human teams. Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security (ARLIS).

Cohen

S. G.

Bailey

D. E.

(1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303

Cooley

Payne

B. K.

Cipolli

Cameron

C. D.

Berger

Gray

(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), 691–699. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000293

10.

Costa

A. C.

Fulmer

C. A.

Anderson

N. R.

(2018). Trust in work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2213

11.

Costello

Osborne

(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868

12.

Cucciniello

Sangiovanni

Maggi

Rossi

(2023). Mind perception in HRI: Exploring users’ attribution of mental and emotional states to robots with different behavioural styles. International Journal of Social Robotics, 15(5), 867–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-00989-z

13.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

14.

Dou

C.-F.

Wang

Niu

(2020). User expectations of social robots in different applications: An online user study. In Stephanidis

Kurosu

Degen

Reinerman-Jones

(Eds.), HCI international 2020—Late breaking papers: Multimodality and intelligence (pp. 64–72). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60117-1_5

15.

Dunn

Ruedy

N. E.

Schweitzer

M. E.

(2012). It hurts both ways: How social comparisons harm affective and cognitive trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.08.001

16.

Epley

Caruso

E. M.

Bazerman

M. H.

(2006). When perspective taking increases taking: Reactive egoism in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 872–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.872

17.

Epley

Waytz

(2010). Mind perception. In Fiske

S. T.

Gilbert

D. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 498–541). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

18.

Esterwood

Robert

L. P.

(2023). The theory of mind and human–robot trust repair. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 9877. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-37032-0

19.

Feitosa

Grossman

Kramer

W. S.

Salas

(2020). Measuring team trust: A critical and meta-analytical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(5), 479–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2436

20.

Flathmann

Schelble

B. G.

McNeese

N. J.

Knijnenburg

Gramopadhye

A. K.

Chalil Madathil

(2023). The purposeful presentation of AI teammates: Impacts on human acceptance and perception. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(20), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2254984

21.

Glikson

Woolley

A. W.

(2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057

22.

Gray

H. M.

Gray

Wegner

D. M.

(2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475

23.

Gray

Knobe

Sheskin

Bloom

Barrett

L. F.

(2011). More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025883

24.

Gray

Wegner

D. M.

(2012). Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition, 125(1), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.007

25.

Groom

Nass

(2007). Can robots be teammates?: Benchmarks in human–robot teams. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.8.3.10gro

26.

Hackel

L. M.

Looser

C. E.

Van Bavel

J. J.

(2014). Group membership alters the threshold for mind perception: The role of social identity, collective identification, and intergroup threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.12.001

27.

Hancock

P. A.

Billings

D. R.

Schaefer

K. E.

Chen

J. Y. C.

de Visser

E. J.

Parasuraman

(2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254

28.

Harris-Watson

A. M.

Larson

L. E.

Lauharatanahirun

DeChurch

L. A.

Contractor

N. S.

(2023). Social perception in human-AI teams: Warmth and competence predict receptivity to AI teammates. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, 107765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107765

29.

Hinds

P. J.

Roberts

T. L.

Jones

(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

30.

Hodson

Doucher

(2020). Language framing shapes dehumanization of groups: A successful replication and extension of Cooley et al. (2017). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(8), 1603–1607. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000723

31.

Hoff

K. A.

Bashir

(2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570

32.

Hood

(2024, June 6). Introducing Asana AI teammates. Asana. https://asana.com/inside-asana/introducing-asana-ai-teammates

33.

Pan

Gong

Yang

(2021). Can AI artifacts influence human cognition? The effects of artificial autonomy in intelligent personal assistants. International Journal of Information Management, 56, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102250

34.

Jessup

S. A.

Schneider

T. R.

Alarcon

G. M.

Ryan

T. J.

Capiola

(2019). The measurement of the propensity to trust automation. In Chen

J. Y. C.

Fragomeni

(Eds.), Virtual, augmented and mixed reality. Applications and case studies (pp. 476–489). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21565-1_32

35.

Kane

A. A.

Argote

Levine

J. M.

(2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.09.002

36.

Kaplan

A. D.

Kessler

T. T.

Brill

J. C.

Hancock

P. A.

(2023). Trust in artificial intelligence: Meta-analytic findings. Human Factors, 65(2), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211013988

37.

King

W. J.

Ohya

(1996). The representation of agents: Anthropomorphism, agency, and intelligence. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems Common Ground - CHI ’, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 13−18 April, 1996, vol. 96, pp. 289–290. https://doi.org/10.1145/257089.257326

38.

Larson

L. E.

DeChurch

L. A.

(2020). Leading teams in the digital age: Four perspectives on technology and what they mean for leading teams. Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), 101377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101377

39.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392

40.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Krull

J. L.

Lockwood

C. M.

(2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371

41.

Madhavan

Wiegmann

D. A.

(2007). Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(4), 277–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500337708

42.

McAllister

D. J.

(1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/256727

43.

McNeese

N. J.

Demir

Cooke

N. J.

Myers

(2018). Teaming with a synthetic teammate: Insights into human-autonomy teaming. Human Factors, 60(2), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817743223

44.

Mori

MacDorman

Kageki

(2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811

45.

Nowak

K. L.

Rauh

(2005). The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00308.x

46.

O’Neill

McNeese

Barron

Schelble

(2022). Human–autonomy teaming: A review and analysis of the empirical literature. Human Factors, 64(5), 904–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820960865

47.

Pak

Rovira

McLaughlin

A. C.

Baldwin

(2017). Does the domain of technology impact user trust? Investigating trust in automation across different consumer-oriented domains in young adults, military, and older adults. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 18(3), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2016.1175523

48.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

T. B.

Wickens

C. D.

(2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354

49.

Pierce

J. R.

Kilduff

G. J.

Galinsky

A. D.

Sivanathan

(2013). From glue to gasoline: How competition turns perspective takers unethical. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1986–1994. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613482144

50.

Rosseel

(2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

51.

Saltik

Erdil

Urgen

B. A.

(2021). Mind perception and social robots: The role of agent appearance and action types. In Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Boulder, CO, USA, 8−11 March, 2021, pp. 210–214. https://doi.org/10.1145/3434074.3447161

52.

Sarker

Valacich

J. S.

(2010). An alternative to methodological individualism: A non-reductionist approach to studying technology adoption by groups. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 779. https://doi.org/10.2307/25750705

53.

Sarker

Valacich

Sarker

(2005). Technology adoption by groups: A valence perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(2), 37–71. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00064

54.

Schaefer

K. E.

Chen

J. Y. C.

Szalma

J. L.

Hancock

P. A.

(2016). A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: Implications for understanding autonomy in future systems. Human Factors, 58(3), 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816634228

55.

Shank

D. B.

North

Arnold

Gamez

(2021). Can mind perception explain virtuous character judgments of artificial intelligence? Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(3), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000047

56.

Shneiderman

(2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Three fresh ideas. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00131

57.

Stafford

R. Q.

MacDonald

B. A.

Jayawardena

Wegner

D. M.

Broadbent

(2014). Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0186-y

58.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.

59.

Tajfel

(1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245

60.

Tajfel

Turner

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Brooks-Cole.

61.

Tang

Gray

(2021). Feeling empathy for organizations: Moral consequences, mechanisms, and the power of framing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104147

62.

Venkatesh

(2022). Adoption and use of AI tools: A research agenda grounded in UTAUT. Annals of Operations Research, 308(1–2), 641–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03918-9

63.

Venkatesh

Davis

F. D.

(2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

64.

Venkatesh

Morris

M. G.

Davis

G. B.

Davis

F. D.

(2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

65.

Waytz

Gray

Epley

Wegner

D. M.

(2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006

66.

Waytz

Heafner

Epley

(2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005

67.

Wegner

D. M.

Gray

K. J.

(2016). The mind club: Who thinks, what feels, and why it matters. Viking.

68.

Wildman

J. L.

Nguyen

Thayer

A. L.

Robbins-Roth

V. T.

Carroll

Carmody

Ficke

Akib

Addis

(2024). Trust in human-agent teams: A multilevel perspective and future research agenda. Organizational Psychology Review, 14(3), 373–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241253278

69.

Wynne

K. T.

Lyons

J. B.

(2018). An integrative model of autonomous agent teammate-likeness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19(3), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2016.1260181

70.

Zlotowski

J. A.

Sumioka

Nishio

Glas

D. F.

Bartneck

Ishiguro

(2015). Persistence of the uncanny valley: The influence of repeated interactions and a robot’s attitude on its perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 883. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00883

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.

0.50 MB

0.00 MB