Cargando…
Lean back or lean in? Exploring social loafing in human–robot teams
Introduction: Thanks to technological advances, robots are now being used for a wide range of tasks in the workplace. They are often introduced as team partners to assist workers. This teaming is typically associated with positive effects on work performance and outcomes. However, little is known ab...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10623551/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37929075 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2023.1249252 |
_version_ | 1785130761730392064 |
---|---|
author | Cymek, Dietlind Helene Truckenbrodt, Anna Onnasch, Linda |
author_facet | Cymek, Dietlind Helene Truckenbrodt, Anna Onnasch, Linda |
author_sort | Cymek, Dietlind Helene |
collection | PubMed |
description | Introduction: Thanks to technological advances, robots are now being used for a wide range of tasks in the workplace. They are often introduced as team partners to assist workers. This teaming is typically associated with positive effects on work performance and outcomes. However, little is known about whether typical performance-reducing effects that occur in human teams also occur in human–robot teams. For example, it is not clear whether social loafing, defined as reduced individual effort on a task performed in a team compared to a task performed alone, can also occur in human–robot teams. Methods: We investigated this question in an experimental study in which participants worked on an industrial defect inspection task that required them to search for manufacturing defects on circuit boards. One group of participants worked on the task alone, while the other group worked with a robot team partner, receiving boards that had already been inspected by the robot. The robot was quite reliable and marked defects on the boards before handing them over to the human. However, it missed 5 defects. The dependent behavioural measures of interest were effort, operationalised as inspection time and area inspected on the board, and defect detection performance. In addition, subjects rated their subjective effort, performance, and perceived responsibility for the task. Results: Participants in both groups inspected almost the entire board surface, took their time searching, and rated their subjective effort as high. However, participants working in a team with the robot found on average 3.3 defects. People working alone found significantly more defects on these 5 occasions–an average of 4.2. Discussion: This suggests that participants may have searched the boards less attentively when working with a robot team partner. The participants in our study seemed to have maintained the motor effort to search the boards, but it appears that the search was carried out with less mental effort and less attention to the information being sampled. Changes in mental effort are much harder to measure, but need to be minimised to ensure good performance. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10623551 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106235512023-11-04 Lean back or lean in? Exploring social loafing in human–robot teams Cymek, Dietlind Helene Truckenbrodt, Anna Onnasch, Linda Front Robot AI Robotics and AI Introduction: Thanks to technological advances, robots are now being used for a wide range of tasks in the workplace. They are often introduced as team partners to assist workers. This teaming is typically associated with positive effects on work performance and outcomes. However, little is known about whether typical performance-reducing effects that occur in human teams also occur in human–robot teams. For example, it is not clear whether social loafing, defined as reduced individual effort on a task performed in a team compared to a task performed alone, can also occur in human–robot teams. Methods: We investigated this question in an experimental study in which participants worked on an industrial defect inspection task that required them to search for manufacturing defects on circuit boards. One group of participants worked on the task alone, while the other group worked with a robot team partner, receiving boards that had already been inspected by the robot. The robot was quite reliable and marked defects on the boards before handing them over to the human. However, it missed 5 defects. The dependent behavioural measures of interest were effort, operationalised as inspection time and area inspected on the board, and defect detection performance. In addition, subjects rated their subjective effort, performance, and perceived responsibility for the task. Results: Participants in both groups inspected almost the entire board surface, took their time searching, and rated their subjective effort as high. However, participants working in a team with the robot found on average 3.3 defects. People working alone found significantly more defects on these 5 occasions–an average of 4.2. Discussion: This suggests that participants may have searched the boards less attentively when working with a robot team partner. The participants in our study seemed to have maintained the motor effort to search the boards, but it appears that the search was carried out with less mental effort and less attention to the information being sampled. Changes in mental effort are much harder to measure, but need to be minimised to ensure good performance. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10623551/ /pubmed/37929075 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2023.1249252 Text en Copyright © 2023 Cymek, Truckenbrodt and Onnasch. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Robotics and AI Cymek, Dietlind Helene Truckenbrodt, Anna Onnasch, Linda Lean back or lean in? Exploring social loafing in human–robot teams |
title | Lean back or lean in? Exploring social loafing in human–robot teams |
title_full | Lean back or lean in? Exploring social loafing in human–robot teams |
title_fullStr | Lean back or lean in? Exploring social loafing in human–robot teams |
title_full_unstemmed | Lean back or lean in? Exploring social loafing in human–robot teams |
title_short | Lean back or lean in? Exploring social loafing in human–robot teams |
title_sort | lean back or lean in? exploring social loafing in human–robot teams |
topic | Robotics and AI |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10623551/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37929075 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2023.1249252 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cymekdietlindhelene leanbackorleaninexploringsocialloafinginhumanrobotteams AT truckenbrodtanna leanbackorleaninexploringsocialloafinginhumanrobotteams AT onnaschlinda leanbackorleaninexploringsocialloafinginhumanrobotteams |