Cited by 141Social Robot Interaction and HRISpeech and dialogue systemsAI in Service Interactions

Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human–robot team

Open access
Traeger, Margaret L., Strohkorb Sebo, Sarah, Jung, Malte, Scassellati, Brian, Christakis, Nicholas A.·2020·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Social robots are becoming increasingly influential in shaping the behavior of humans with whom they interact. Here, we examine how the actions of a social robot can influence human-to-human communication, and not just robot–human communication, using groups of three humans and one robot playing 30 rounds of a collaborative game ( n = 51 groups). We find that people in groups with a robot making vulnerable statements converse substantially more with each other, distribute their conversation somewhat more equally, and perceive their groups more positively compared to control groups with a robot that either makes neutral statements or no statements at the end of each round. Shifts in robot speech have the power not only to affect how people interact with robots, but also how people interact with each other, offering the prospect for modifying social interactions via the introduction of artificial agents into hybrid systems of humans and machines.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1910402117

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Automated agents trained to perform poorly at collaborative tasks can improve the behavior of human team members.

    “Conversely, Traeger et al. find automated agents that are trained to perform poorly at collaborative tasks can actually improve the behavior of human team members (29).”

    From Can Generative AI improve social science? (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Traeger, M. L., Strohkorb Sebo, S., Jung, M., Scassellati, B., & Christakis, N. A.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Department of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520;
  • Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Christakis, Nicholas A.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2020-03-09
Volume
117
Issue
12
Pages
6370-6375
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W3009999177
Cited by
140
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 13
FWCI
21.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (75421)
  • National Science Foundation (1139078, GR104893)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
social robots, human-robot teams, human-to-human communication, conversational dynamics, collaborative games, group interaction, robot speech, hybrid human-machine systems
MeSH terms
Communication, Cooperative Behavior, Group Processes, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Robotics, Social Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review