Mixing It Up: How Mixed Groups of Humans and Machines Modulate Conformity

IF 2.2 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making Pub Date : 2019-12-01 DOI:10.1177/1555343419869465
N. Hertz, Tyler H. Shaw, E. D. de Visser, E. Wiese
{"title":"Mixing It Up: How Mixed Groups of Humans and Machines Modulate Conformity","authors":"N. Hertz, Tyler H. Shaw, E. D. de Visser, E. Wiese","doi":"10.1177/1555343419869465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines to what extent mixed groups of computers and humans are able to produce conformity effects in human interaction partners. Previous studies reveal that nonhuman groups can induce conformity under certain circumstances, but it is unknown to what extent mixed groups of human and nonhuman agents are able to produce similar effects. It is also unknown how varying the number of human agents per group can affect conformity. Participants were assigned to one of five groups varying in their proportion of human to nonhuman agent composition and were asked to complete a social and analytical task with the assigned group. These task types were chosen to represent tasks which humans (i.e., social task) or computers (i.e., analytical task) may be perceived as having greater expertise in, as well as roughly approximating real-world tasks humans may complete. A mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed higher rates of conformity (i.e., percentage of time participants answered in line with their group on critical trials) with the group opinion for the analytical versus the social task. In addition, there was an impact of the ratio of human to nonhuman agents per group on conformity on the social task, with higher conformity with the group opinion as the number of humans in the group increased. No such effect was observed for the analytical task. The findings suggest that mixed groups produce different levels of conformity depending on group composition and task type. Designers of systems should be aware that group composition and task type may influence compliance and should design systems accordingly.","PeriodicalId":46342,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1555343419869465","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343419869465","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

This study examines to what extent mixed groups of computers and humans are able to produce conformity effects in human interaction partners. Previous studies reveal that nonhuman groups can induce conformity under certain circumstances, but it is unknown to what extent mixed groups of human and nonhuman agents are able to produce similar effects. It is also unknown how varying the number of human agents per group can affect conformity. Participants were assigned to one of five groups varying in their proportion of human to nonhuman agent composition and were asked to complete a social and analytical task with the assigned group. These task types were chosen to represent tasks which humans (i.e., social task) or computers (i.e., analytical task) may be perceived as having greater expertise in, as well as roughly approximating real-world tasks humans may complete. A mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed higher rates of conformity (i.e., percentage of time participants answered in line with their group on critical trials) with the group opinion for the analytical versus the social task. In addition, there was an impact of the ratio of human to nonhuman agents per group on conformity on the social task, with higher conformity with the group opinion as the number of humans in the group increased. No such effect was observed for the analytical task. The findings suggest that mixed groups produce different levels of conformity depending on group composition and task type. Designers of systems should be aware that group composition and task type may influence compliance and should design systems accordingly.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
混合:人类和机器的混合群体如何调节一致性
这项研究考察了计算机和人类的混合群体在多大程度上能够在人类互动伙伴中产生一致性效应。先前的研究表明,在某些情况下,非人类群体可以诱导一致性,但尚不清楚人类和非人类因素的混合群体在多大程度上能够产生类似的效果。还不知道每个群体的人类代理人数量的变化会如何影响一致性。参与者被分配到五组中的一组,每组的人类与非人类主体组成的比例各不相同,并被要求与被分配的组一起完成一项社会和分析任务。选择这些任务类型是为了表示人类(即社会任务)或计算机(即分析任务)可能被认为具有更大专业知识的任务,以及大致接近人类可能完成的现实世界任务。混合方差分析(ANOVA)显示,与社会任务相比,分析任务与小组意见的一致性更高(即参与者在关键试验中与小组一致回答的时间百分比)。此外,每个群体中人类与非人类主体的比例对社会任务的一致性也有影响,随着群体中人类数量的增加,对群体意见的一致性更高。分析任务没有观察到这种影响。研究结果表明,混合小组根据小组组成和任务类型产生不同程度的一致性。系统的设计者应意识到团队组成和任务类型可能会影响合规性,并应相应地设计系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Introduction to the Special Issue on Automation Failure Augmenting Human Cognition With a Digital Submarine Periscope Get on the Round Dial: Fighter Pilot Strategies for Recovering Situation Awareness After Disorienting Physiological Events Distinguishing Urgent From Non-urgent Communications: A Mixed Methods Study of Communication Technology Use in Perinatal Care Wrong, Strong, and Silent: What Happens when Automated Systems With High Autonomy and High Authority Misbehave?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1