Top

Gepubliceerd in:

21-03-2020 | Original Article

Human vs. machine: the psychological and behavioral consequences of being compared to an outperforming artificial agent

Auteurs: Nicolas Spatola, Alice Normand

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2021

Abstract

While artificial agents (AA) such as Artificial Intelligence are being extensively developed, a popular belief that AA will someday surpass human intelligence is growing. The present research examined whether this common belief translates into negative psychological and behavioral consequences when individuals assess that an AA performs better than them on cognitive and intellectual tasks. In two studies, participants were led to believe that an AA performed better or less well than them on a cognitive inhibition task (Study 1) and on an intelligence task (Study 2). Results indicated that being outperformed by an AA increased subsequent participants’ performance as long as they did not experience psychological discomfort towards the AA and self-threat. Psychological implications in terms of motivation and potential threat as well as the prerequisite for the future interactions of humans with AAs are further discussed.

vorige artikel Embodied self-other overlap in romantic love: a review and integrative perspective

volgende artikel Visual feedback from a virtual body modulates motor illusion induced by tendon vibration

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Alphas less than 0.7 are considered as non-reliable (Cronbach, 1951; James Dean Brown, 2002).

Data are available at https://osf.io/f9z6r/.

For second session analyses similar to Normand & Croizet (2013), see Supplementary Material.

However we controlled that participants’ performance on the Raven matrices did not differ in Session 1, F(2, 73) = 429., p = .653, η_p² = .012.

Anderson, M. L. (2005). Why is AI so scary? Artificial Intelligence, 169(2), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2005.10.008.CrossRef

Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2012). The influence of mere social presence on Stroop interference: New evidence from the semantically-based Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.014.CrossRef

Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2014). Automaticity of word reading: Evidence from the semantic stroop paradigm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(5), 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414540169.CrossRef

Ayoub, K., & Payne, K. (2016). Strategy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Strategic Studies, 39(5–6), 793–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2015.1088838.CrossRef

Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 1–40). Academic Press.

Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Salomon, K. (1999). Social “facilitation” as challenge and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.68.CrossRefPubMed

Brewka, G. (1996). Artificial intelligence—a modern approach by Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig, Prentice Hall. Series in Artificial Intelligence, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. In The Knowledge Engineering Review (Vol. 11). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0269888900007724

Brown, J. D. (2002). The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate. JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 6(1), 17–18.

Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven progressive matrices test. Psychological Review, 97(3), 404–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.404.CrossRefPubMed

Carpinella, C. M., Wyman, A. B., Perez, M. A., & Stroessner, S. J. (2017). The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS): Development and Validation. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Part F1271, 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020208

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.CrossRef

Dalrymple, K. L., & Herbert, J. D. (2007). Acceptance and commitment therapy for generalized social anxiety disorder a pilot study. Behavior Modification, 31(5), 543–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445507302037.CrossRefPubMed

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.CrossRefPubMed

Fumi, F. G., & Parr, R. G. (1953). Electronic states of diatomic molecules: The oxygen molecule. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 21(10), 1864–1868. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1698680.CrossRef

Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127.CrossRefPubMed

Harrison, T. L., Shipstead, Z., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Why is working memory capacity related to matrix reasoning tasks? Memory and Cognition, 43(3), 389–396. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0473-3.CrossRefPubMed

Heerink, M. (2011). Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. HRI 2011 - Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957704

Huguet, P., Galvaing, M. P., Monteil, J. M., & Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task: Further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1011–1024. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1011.CrossRefPubMed

Kuo, I. H., Rabindran, J. M., Broadbent, E., Lee, Y. I., Kerse, N., Stafford, R. M. Q., et al. (2009). Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. Proceedings IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326292.CrossRef

Lachaud, C. M., & Renaud, O. (2011). A tutorial for analyzing human reaction times: How to filter data, manage missing values, and choose a statistical model. Applied Psycholinguistics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716410000457.CrossRef

Lawless, W. F., Mittu, R., Russell, S., & Sofge, D. (2017). Autonomy and artificial intelligence: A Threat or Savior? In: Autonomy and Artificial Intelligence: A Threat or Savior?https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59719-5

Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.91.CrossRef

McArthur, D., Lewis, M., & Bishary, M. (2005). The Roles Of Artificial Intelligence In Education: Current Progress And Future Prospects. I-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 1(4), 42–80. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.1.4.972.CrossRef

Muller, D., Atzeni, T., & Butera, F. (2004). Coaction and upward social comparison reduce the illusory conjunction effect: Support for distraction-conflict theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 659–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.12.003.CrossRef

Muller, D., & Butera, F. (2007). The focusing effect of self-evaluation threat in coaction and social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.194.CrossRefPubMed

Mushtaq, F., Bland, A. R., & Schaefer, A. (2011). Uncertainty and cognitive control. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00249.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Nomura, T. (2017). Robots and Gender. In: Principles of gender-specific medicine: Gender in the genomic era: Third Edition. 10.1016/B978-0-12-803506-1.00042-5

Normand, A., & Croizet, J. C. (2013). Upward social comparison generates att entional focusing when the dimension of comparison is self-threatening. Social Cognition, 31(3), 336–348. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2013.31.3.336.CrossRef

Normand, A., Bouquet, C. A., & Croizet, J. C. (2014). Does evaluative pressure make you less or more distractible? Role of top-down attentional control over response selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1097–1111. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034985.CrossRef

Pan, Y., & Steed, A. (2016). A comparison of avatar-, video-, and robot-mediated interaction on users’ trust in expertise. Frontiers Robotics AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00012.CrossRef

Paulhus, D. L. (2013). Measurement and control of response bias. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-590241-0.50006-x.CrossRef

Perri, (2001). Ethics, regulation and the new artificial intelligence, part I: Accountability and Power. Information Communication and Society, 4(2), 199–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180110044461.CrossRef

Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019440.CrossRef

Raven, J. C. (1941). Standardization of progressive matrices, 1938. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 19(1), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1941.tb00316.x.CrossRef

Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s progressive matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0735.CrossRefPubMed

Riether, N., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., & Horstmann, G. (2012). Social facilitation with social robots? HRI’12 - Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157697

Rigas, H., Booth, T., Briggs, F., Murata, T., & Stone, H. S. (1985). Artificial intelligence research in Japan. Computer, 18(9), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.1985.1663007.CrossRef

Rubio, V., & Deng, X. W. (2007). PLANT SCIENCE: Standing on the Shoulders of GIGANTEA. Science, 318(5848), 206–207. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150213.CrossRefPubMed

Sanders, G. S., Baron, R. S., & Moore, D. L. (1978). Distraction and social comparison as mediators of social facilitation effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(3), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90017-3.CrossRef

Schermerhorn, P., Scheutz, M., & Crowell, C. R. (2008). Robot social presence and gender: Do females view robots differently than males? HRI 2008 Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction: Living with Robots. https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349857

Serrano-Cinca, C., Fuertes-Callén, Y., & Mar-Molinero, C. (2005). Measuring DEA efficiency in Internet companies. Decision Support Systems, 38(4), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2003.08.004.CrossRef

Spatola, N., Belletier, C., Chausse, P., Augustinova, M., Normand, A., Barra, V., et al. (2019a). Improved Cognitive Control in Presence of Anthropomorphized Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(3), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-00511-w.CrossRef

Spatola, N., Belletier, C., Normand, A., Chausse, P., Monceau, S., Augustinova, M., et al. (2018). Not as bad as it seems: When the presence of a threatening humanoid robot improves human performance. Science Robotics, 3(21), aat5843. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5843.CrossRef

Spatola, N., Monceau, S., & Ferrand, L. (2019b). Cognitive impact of Social Robots: How anthropomorphism boosts performance. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2019.2928823.CrossRef

Stankov, L., & Schweizer, K. (2007). Raven’s progressive matrices, manipulations of complexity and measures of accuracy, speed and confidence. Psychology Science, 49(4), 326–342.

Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00191.CrossRef

Tanaka, K., Nakanishi, H., & Ishiguro, H. (2014). Comparing video, avatar, and robot mediated communication: pros and cons of embodiment. Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing, 460, 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44651-5_9.CrossRef

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21(C), 181–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60227-0.CrossRef

Testa, M., & Major, B. (1990). The impact of social comparisons after failure: The moderating effects of perceived control. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11(2), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1102_7.CrossRef

Vandierendonck, A. (2017). A comparison of methods to combine speed and accuracy measures of performance: A rejoinder on the binning procedure. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0721-5.CrossRefPubMed

Vandierendonck, A. (2018). Further tests of the utility of integrated speed-accuracy measures in task switching. Journal of Cognition. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.231.CrossRef

Titel: Human vs. machine: the psychological and behavioral consequences of being compared to an outperforming artificial agent
Auteurs: Nicolas Spatola
Alice Normand
Publicatiedatum: 21-03-2020
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01317-0

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2021

Lower limb peripersonal space and the desire to amputate a leg

The influence of threat on the efficiency of goal-directed attentional control

Does temporal predictability of tasks influence task choice?

Perceptual-cognitive processes underlying creative expert performance in soccer

Power of instructions for task implementation: superiority of explicitly instructed over inferred rules

Embodied self-other overlap in romantic love: a review and integrative perspective