Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When in Doubt, Agree with the Robot? Effects of Team Size and Agent Teammate Influence on Team Decision-Making in a Gambling Task

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
HCI International 2021 - Late Breaking Posters (HCII 2021)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1498))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 2176 Accesses

Abstract

Human-machine teaming is expected to provide substantive benefits to team performance; however, introduction of machine agents will also impact teamwork. Agents are likely to exert substantial influence on team dynamics, even if they possess only limited abilities to engage in teamwork processes. This influence may be mitigated by team size and experience with the agent. The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the influence of an agent on team processes in a team consensus gambling task. Teams were either two or three humans and a machine agent. Participants completed fifty rounds of a gambling task, similar to the game roulette. In each round, team members entered their belief about what the next round outcome would be, a proposed wager, and how confident they were. The machine agent also made a suggestion regarding outcome and wager, but its accuracy was fairly low. The human team members then had to come to a consensus regarding outcome and wager. Overall, the agent exerted significant influence on team decision making, wagering, and confidence. Contrary to initial predictions, team size had only a modest effect, mostly on confidence ratings. Experience with the agent also did not have much effect on the agent’s influence, even as the team was able to observe that the agent’s accuracy was low. These results suggest that machine agents are likely to exert significant influence on team processes, even when they possess limited abilities to engage in teamwork.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Alarcon, G.M., et al.: The effect of propensity to trust and perceptions of trustworthiness on trust behaviors in dyads. Behav. Res. Methods 50(5), 1906–1920 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0959-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alnuaimi, O.A., et al.: Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: a perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 27(1), 203–230 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222270109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berberian, B.: Man-machine teaming: a problem of agency. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51(34), 118–123 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.01.049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, J.Y.C., Barnes, M.J.: Human-agent teaming for multirobot control: a review of human factors issues. IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 44(1), 13–29 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2013.2293535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dzindolet, M.T., et al.: The role of trust in automation reliance. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 58(6), 697–718 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Green, C.S., et al.: Alterations in choice behavior by manipulations of world model. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107(37), 16401–16406 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1001709107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Grigsby, S.S.: Artificial intelligence for advanced human-machine symbiosis. In: Schmorrow, D.D., Fidopiastis, C.M. (eds.) AC 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10915, pp. 255–266. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91470-1_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Holbrook, J.B., et al.: Enabling urban air mobility: human-autonomy teaming research challenges and recommendations. In: AIAA Aviation 2020 Forum. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc, AIAA (2020). https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-3250

  9. Komiak, S.Y.X., Benbasat, I.: The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Q. 30(4), 941–960 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2307/25148760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Koster, J., McElreath, R.: Multinomial analysis of behavior: statistical methods. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71(9), 1–14 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2363-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kwon, M., et al.: Human expectations of social robots. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 463–464. IEEE Press, New York (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451807

  12. Lee, M.K., et al.: Personalization in HRI: a longitudinal field experiment. In: 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 319–326. IEEE Press, New York (2012). https://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/2012/3/HRI12_Personalization_camready_final.pdf

  13. Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors 46(1), 50–80 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Lyell, D., Coiera, E.: Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 24(2), 423–431 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mao, A., et al.: An experimental study of team size and performance on a complex task. PLoS ONE 11, 4 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H.: The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 84(1), 123–136 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McCullagh, P.: Model status as a determinant of observational learning and performance. J. Sport Psychol. 8(4), 319–331 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.8.4.319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McElreath, R.: Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and STAN. 2nd edn. CRC Press, New York (2020). https://www.routledge.com/Statistical-Rethinking-A-Bayesian-Course-with-Examples-in-R-and-STAN/McElreath/p/book/9780367139919

  19. Naquin, C.E., Paulson, G.D.: Online bargaining and interpersonal trust. J. Appl. Psychol. 88(1), 113–120 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nicholson, C.Y., et al.: The role of interpersonal liking in building trust in long-term channel relationships. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 29(3), 3–15 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070301291001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. R Core Team: R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

  22. Riggs, M.L., Knight, P.A.: The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: a causal model. J. Appl. Psychol. 79(5), 755–766 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tolston, M.T., et al.: Have a heart: predictability of trust in an autonomous agent teammate through team-level measures of heart rate synchrony and arousal. Proc. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Soc. Ann. Meet. 62(1), 714–715 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Walliser, J.C., et al.: Team structure and team building improve human–machine teaming with autonomous agents. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 13(4), 258–278 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343419867563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Warden, T., et al.: The national academies board on human system integration (BOHSI) panel: promise, progress and challenges of leveraging AI technology in healthcare. Proc. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Soc. Ann. Meet. 64(1), 2124–2128 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wickens, C.D., et al.: Workload and automation reliability in unmanned air vehicles. In: Cooke, N.J., et al. (eds.) Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research: Vol. 7. Human Factors of Remotely Operated Vehicles, pp. 209–222. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3601(05)07015-3

  27. Wolfe, J., Chacko, T.: The effects of different team sizes on business game performance. Dev. Bus. Simul. Exp. Exerc. 9, 232–235 (1982). https://absel-ojs-ttu.tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/article/view/2372/2341

  28. Zacharias, G.L.: Autonomous Horizons: The Way Forward. Air University Press, Maxwell AFB (2015). https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/b_0155_zacharias_autonomous_horizons.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 45433, USA

    Gregory J. Funke, Michael T. Tolston, Brent Miller & August Capiola

  2. Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation, Dayton, OH, 45324, USA

    Margaret A. Bowers

Authors
  1. Gregory J. Funke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael T. Tolston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brent Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Margaret A. Bowers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. August Capiola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory J. Funke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Crete and Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Constantine Stephanidis

  2. Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Margherita Antona

  3. Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Stavroula Ntoa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Funke, G.J., Tolston, M.T., Miller, B., Bowers, M.A., Capiola, A. (2021). When in Doubt, Agree with the Robot? Effects of Team Size and Agent Teammate Influence on Team Decision-Making in a Gambling Task. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M., Ntoa, S. (eds) HCI International 2021 - Late Breaking Posters. HCII 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1498. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90176-9_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90176-9_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-90175-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-90176-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation