Ostracism research has shown that even being ostracized by a computer or observing ostracism hurts. Intersecting these two standpoints with human–robot interaction (HRI) research, we conducted three preregistered experiments to investigate observers’ evaluations of vicarious robot ostracism. In Study 1 (N = 140), people observing an excluded (vs. included) robot in a Cyberball game attributed higher negative emotions and need-threat to the robot, experienced more negative emotions, perceived the humans more negatively, and perceived the human–robot group as less entitative. Study 2 (N = 172) replicated Study 1 and showed that participants’ responses did not vary for an excluded human or robot. Study 3 (N = 238) replicated the previous findings using a social media ostracism paradigm and showed that not even the robot’s anthropomorphic features influenced observers’ responses. The research suggests that the ostracism detection system functions even for vicarious robot exclusion and uncovers anthropomorphism, human intragroup, and human–robot intergroup processes unfolding in HRIs.
AbramsA. M.der PüttenA. M. (2020). I–C–E framework: Concepts for group dynamics research in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(6), 1213–1229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00642-z
2.
AirentiG. (2015). The cognitive bases of anthropomorphism: From relatedness to empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0263-x
3.
BanksJ. (2020) Theory of mind in social robots: Replication of five established human tests. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12, 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00588-x
4.
BartneckC.BelpaemeT.EysselF.KandaT.KeijsersM.ŠabanovićS. (2020). Human–robot interaction: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108676649
5.
BartneckC.KulićD.CroftE.ZoghbiS. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3
6.
BlutM.WangC.WünderlichN. V.BrockC. (2021). Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: A meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(4), 632–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y
7.
BuckleyK. E.WinkelR. E.LearyM. R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00064-7
8.
BüttnerC. M.JauchM.MarinucciM.WilliamsK. D.GreifenederR.RivaP.RudertS. C. (2024). It will (never) stop hurting: Do repeated or chronic experiences of exclusion lead to hyper- or hyposensitive psychological responses?Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 27(2), 256–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221140002
9.
CampbellD. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830030103
10.
CarpinellaC. M.WymanA. B.PerezM. A.StroessnerS. J. (2017, March6–9). The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS) development and validation [Conference session]. In MutluB.TscheligiM. (Chairs), Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (pp. 254–262). ACM.
11.
CloreG. L.SchwarzN.ConwayM. (1994). Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. In WyerR. S.SrullT. K. (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Vol. 1. Basic processes (pp. 323–417). Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
CritcherC. R.ZayasV. (2014). The involuntary excluder effect: Those included by an excluder are seen as exclusive themselves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036951
13.
EpleyN.WaytzA.CacioppoJ. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
14.
ErelH.CarsentiE.ZuckermanO. (2022, March7–10). A carryover effect in HRI: Beyond direct social effects in human–robot interaction [Conference session]. In SakamotoD.WeissA. (Chairs), Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (pp. 342–352). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889554
15.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
16.
FrauneM. R.NishiwakiY.SabanovićS.SmithE. R.OkadaM. (2017, March6–9). Threatening flocks and mindful snowflakes: How group entitativity affects perceptions of robots [Conference session]. In MutluB.TscheligiM. (Chairs), Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (pp. 205–213). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020248
17.
GiesenA.EchterhoffG. (2018). Do I really feel your pain? Comparing the effects of observed and personal ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(4), 550–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217744524
18.
IshiiT.WatanabeK. (2019, January23–26). How people attribute minds to non-living entities. In 2019 11th International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST) (pp. 213–217). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/KST.2019.8687324
19.
JauchM.RudertS. C.GreifenederR. (2022). Social pain by non-social agents: Exclusion hurts and provokes punishment even if the excluding source is a computer. Acta Psychologica, 230, Article 103753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103753
20.
JoerlingM.BöhmR.PaluchS. (2019). Service robots: Drivers of perceived responsibility for service outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 22(4), 404–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670519842334
21.
KothgassnerO. D.GriesingerM.KettnerK.WayanK.Völkl-KernstockS.HlavacsH.BeutlL.FelnhoferA. (2017). Real-life prosocial behavior decreases after being socially excluded by avatars, not agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.059
22.
KothgassnerO. D.KafkaJ. X.RudykJ.BeutlL.HlavacsH.FelnhoferA. (2014). Does social exclusion hurt virtually like it hurts in real-life? The role of agency and social presence in the perception and experience of social exclusion. Proceedings of the International Society for Presence Research, 15, 45–56. http://eprints.cs.univie.ac.at/3920/
23.
LickelB.HamiltonD. L.WieczorkowskaG.LewisA.ShermanS. J.UhlesA. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223
24.
LorenziniM.LagomarsinoM.FortiniL.GholamiS.AjoudaniA. (2023). Ergonomic human–robot collaboration in industry: A review. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9, Article 813907. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.813907
25.
MongileS.PuscedduG.CocchellaF.LastricoL.BelgiovineG.TanevskaA.ReaF.SciuttiA. (2023, March13–16). What if a social robot excluded you? Using a conversational game to study social exclusion in teen–robot mixed groups [Conference session]. In CastellanoG.RiekL. (Chairs), Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (pp. 208–212). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3568294.3580073
26.
NashK.LeaJ. M.DaviesT.YogeeswaranK. (2018). The bionic blues: Robot rejection lowers self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.018
27.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
PaoliniD.PagliaroS.AlparoneF. R.MarottaF.van BeestI. (2017). On vicarious ostracism. Examining the mediators of observers’ reactions towards the target and the sources of ostracism. Social Influence, 12(4), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2017.1377107
30.
PickettC. L.GardnerW. L. (2005). The social monitoring system. Enhanced sensitivity to social cues as an adaptive response to social exclusion. In WilliamsK. D.ForgasJ. P.von HippelW. (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 213–226). Psychology Press.
31.
PoonK. T.JiangY.TengF. (2020). Putting oneself in someone’s shoes: The effect of observing ostracism on physical pain, social pain, negative emotion, and self-regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, Article 110217. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.paid.2020.110217
32.
PrestonS. D.De WaalF. B. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1–20. https://doi.org.10.1017/S0140525X02000018
33.
RiekL. D.RabinowitchT. C.ChakrabartiB.RobinsonP. (2009, March9–13). How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In ScheutzM.MichaudF. (Chairs), Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (pp. 245–246). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514158
34.
RivaP.SacchiS.BrambillaM. (2015). Humanizing machines: Anthropomorphization of slot machines increases gambling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(4), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000057
35.
Rosenthal-von der PüttenA. M.BockN. (2023). Seriously, what did one robot say to the other? Being left out from communication by robots causes feelings of social exclusion. Human–Machine Communication, 6, 117–134. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.6.7
36.
Rosenthal-von der PüttenA. M.SchulteF. P.EimlerS. C.HoffmannL.SobierajS.MaderwaldS.KrämerN. C.BrandM. (2013, March3–6). Neural correlates of empathy towards robots. In KuzuokaH.EversV. (Chairs), Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (pp. 215–216). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483578
37.
RudertS. C.SutterD.CorrodiV. C.GreifenederR. (2018). Who’s to blame? Dissimilarity as a cue in moral judgments of observed ostracism episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000122
38.
SchneiderF. M.ZwillichB.BindlM. J.HoppF. R.ReichS.VordererP. (2017). Social media ostracism: The effects of being excluded online. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.052
SkjuveM.FølstadA.FostervoldK. I.BrandtzaegP. B. (2021). My chatbot companion – A study of human–chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 149, Article 102601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601
41.
SmithE. R.ŠabanovićS.FrauneM. R. (2021). Human–robot interaction through the lens of social psychological theories of intergroup behavior. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 1(2). Retrieved from https://tmb.apaopen.org/pub/vlke08m8
42.
SpoorJ.WilliamsK. D. (2007). The evolution of an ostracism detection system. In ForgasJ. P.HaseltonM. G.von HippelW. (Eds.), Evolution and the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and social cognition (pp. 279–292). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203837788
43.
ThellmanS.de GraafM.ZiemkeT. (2022). Mental state attribution to robots: A systematic review of conceptions, methods, and findings. ACM Transactions on Human–Robot Interaction (THRI), 11(4), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1145/3526112
44.
ThellmanS.SilvervargA.ZiemkeT. (2017). Folk-psychological interpretation of human vs. humanoid robot behavior: Exploring the intentional stance toward robots. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1962. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01962
45.
ThurstonJ. A. (2012). Exploring group perception: The relationship between the perception of entitativity and assessments of cohesion [Doctoral dissertation, University of California Santa Barbara]. Alexandria Digital Research Library. https://alexandria.ucsb.edu/lib/ark:/48907/f35q4t2x
46.
Van BeestI.WilliamsK. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 918–928. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.918
47.
WesselmannE. D.BaggD.WilliamsK. D. (2009). “I feel your pain”: The effects of observing ostracism on the ostracism detection system. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1308–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.003
WilliamsK. D.JarvisB. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192765
WolfW.LevordashkaA.RuffJ. R.KraaijeveldS.LueckmannJ. M.WilliamsK. D. (2015). Ostracism online: A social media ostracism paradigm. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 361–373. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0475-x
53.
WoodL. J.ZarakiA.RobinsB.DautenhahnK. (2021). Developing Kaspar: A humanoid robot for children with autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(3), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00563-6
54.
ZadroL.WilliamsK. D.RichardsonR. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006
55.
ZłotowskiJ.ProudfootD.YogeeswaranK.BartneckC. (2015). Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(3), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6
56.
ZłotowskiJ.SumiokaH.EysselF.NishioS.BartneckC.IshiguroH. (2018). Model of dual anthropomorphism: The relationship between the media equation effect and implicit anthropomorphism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(5), 701–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0476-5
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.
