Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:34:58.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO STUDY TEAM COHESION IN HUMAN-ROBOT TEAMS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Sreeja Sri Ramoji  and
Vishal Singh
Sreeja Sri Ramoji*
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru
Vishal Singh
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru
*
Sri Ramoji, Sreeja, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

use-case scenarios, including homes, hospitals, workplaces, and recreation. Though the area of Social Robotics has gained traction in recent years, the majority of the studies so far have studied single-human and single-robot interaction. In comparison, Social Robots are increasingly being placed in human teams, likely affecting team dynamics. On the other hand, Engineering teams work together to deliver outstanding results and the processes in these teams are social. We propose that Social robot can be added to engineering human team to enhance team cohesion and performance. Therefore, this paper presents a preliminary framework towards developing a conceptual framework to study team cohesion in Human-Robot Teams (HRTs) in engineering context, looks at different roles of social robot and how the responses, behaviours, emotions of social robots shape outcomes in the engineering team. The research specifically focuses on team cohesion because team cohesion is reportedly one of the most critical concepts in team dynamics. The paper outlines the research objectives, framework and concept workflow.

Keywords

TeamworkOrganizational processesResearch methodologies and methodsArtificial intelligenceSocietal consequences
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 1057 - 1066
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Abrams, A.M.H. and der Pütten, A.M.R. von. (2020), “I–C–E Framework: Concepts for Group Dynamics Research in Human-Robot Interaction: Revisiting Theory from Social Psychology on Ingroup Identification (I), Cohesion (C) and Entitativity (E)”, International Journal of Social Robotics, Springer Netherlands, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 1213–1229, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00642-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrams, D. and Hogg, M.A. (1990), “Social Identification, Self-Categorization and Social Influence”, European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 195–228, https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779108401862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1988), “An ethnographic perspective on engineering design”, Design Studies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 159–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(88)90045-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cagiltay, B., Ho, H.R., Michaelis, J.E. and Mutlu, B. (2020), “Investigating family perceptions and design preferences for an in-home robot”, Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference, IDC 2020, pp. 229–242, https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curhan, J.R. and Pentland, A. (2007), “Thin slices of negotiation: Predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 802–811, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell Technologies. (2018), Realizing 2030: A divided vision of the future.Google Scholar
Eris, O. (2004), Effective inquiry for innovative engineering design (Vol. 10), Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1950), “Informal social communication”, Psychological review, 57(5), p.271–282, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forsyth, D.R. (2014), Group dynamics, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Frankenberger, E. and Auer, P. (1997), “Standardized observation of team-work in design”, Research in Engineering Design - Theory, Applications, and Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01607053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraune, M.R., Sherrin, S., Sabanović, S. and Smith, E.R. (2015), “Rabble of robots effects: Number and type of robots modulates attitudes, emotions, and stereotypes”, In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 109–116).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackman, J.R., 1978, “The design of work in the 1980s”, Organizational Dynamics, 7(1), pp.3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, F., Muhl, C., Wrede, B., Hielscher-Fastabend, M. and Sagerer, G. (2009), “Understanding social robots”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, ACHI, IEEE, No. Section II, pp. 169–174, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACHI.2009.51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, P.J., Roberts, T.L. and Jones, H. (2004), “Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task”, Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 19 No. 1–2, pp. 151–181, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, M.F. (2011), Engineering team performance and emotion: Affective interaction dynamics as indicators of design team performance, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jung, M.F., Martelaro, N. and Hinds, P.J. (2015), “Using Robots to Moderate Team Conflict: The Case of Repairing Violations”, ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ACM, Vol. 2015-March, pp. 229–236, https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ljungblad, S., Kotrbova, J., Jacobsson, M., Cramer, H. and Niechwiadowicz, K. (2012), “Hospital robot at work: Something alien or an intelligent colleague?”, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, pp. 177–186, https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neustaedter, C., Venolia, G., Procyk, J. and Hawkins, D. (2016), “To beam or not to beam: A study of remote telepresence attendance at an academic conference”, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, Vol. 27, pp. 418–431, https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, L.P. and You, S. (2014), “Human-robot interaction in groups: Theory, method, and design for robots in groups”, Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, No. November, pp. 310–312, https://doi.org/10.1145/2660398.2660426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, E., Grossman, R., Hughes, A.M. and Coultas, C.W. (2015), “Measuring team cohesion: Observations from the science”, Human Factors, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 365–374, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815578267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebo, S.S., Dong, L.L., Chang, N. and Scassellati, B. (2020), “Strategies for the inclusion of human members within human-robot teams”, ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ACM, pp. 309–317, https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, V. (2009), Computational studies on the role of social learning in the formation of team mental models, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Singh, V. and Mirzaeifar, S. (2020), “Assessing transactions of distributed knowledge resources in modern construction projects – A transactive memory approach”, Automation in Construction, Elsevier, Vol. 120 No. July, p. 103386, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strohkorb Sebo, S., Traeger, M., Jung, M. and Scassellati, B. (2018), “The Ripple Effects of Vulnerability: The Effects of a Robot's Vulnerable Behavior on Trust in Human-Robot Teams”, ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 178–186, https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taipale, S., de Luca, F., Sarrica, M. and Fortunati, L. (2015), “Robot Shift from Industrial Production to Social Reproduction”, Social Robots from a Human Perspective, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 11–24, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15672-9_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S., (1979), “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, Organizational identity: A reader, 56(65), pp.9780203505984-16.Google Scholar
Takayama, L. and Go, J. (2012), “Mixing metaphors in mobile remote presence”, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, pp. 495–504, https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, J.C. (1989), Listing, drawing and gesturing in design: A study of the use of shared workspaces by design teams.Google Scholar
Tuckman, B.W. (1965), “Developmental sequence in small groups”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 384–399, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, F.D. and Stock-Homburg, R.M. (2022), “How and When Can Robots Be Team Members? Three Decades of Research on Human–Robot Teams”, Group and Organization Management, https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221076636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar