CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 158Social Robot Interaction and HRIAI in Service InteractionsSpeech and dialogue systems

Robots in Groups and Teams: A Literature Review

Open access
Sebo, Sarah, Stoll, Brett, Scassellati, Brian, Jung, Malte F.·2020·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1145/3415247
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Autonomous robots are increasingly placed in contexts that require them to interact with groups of people rather than just a single individual. Interactions with groups of people introduce nuanced challenges for robots, since robots? actions influence both individual group members and complex group dynamics. We review the unique roles robots can play in groups, finding that small changes in their nonverbal behavior and personality impacts group behavior and, by extension, influences ongoing interpersonal interactions.

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 · 10.1145/3415247

Cites

62 of 142 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?

  • Robots may be accepted as informed community members, granting them an outsized potential for persuasion and influence.

    “robots may be accepted as informed community members (although cp. [7]), granting them an outsized potential for persuasion and influence [26, 50, 53].”

    From Robots for Social Justice (R4SJ): Toward a More Equitable Practice of Human-Robot Interaction (2024) · cites this paper as [53]

    Section 3.4 (page not provided) reports that robots can influence group dynamics and how people interact with one another. The review also discusses robots as group members, but the passages do not establish that they are accepted as informed community members or have an outsized potential for persuasion. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Increasing the humanization of AIs has been promoted in HCI as a way to increase positive attitudes towards AIs and the adoption of AI systems [18,54,56].

    “Increasing the humanization of AIs has been promoted in HCI as a way to increase positive attitudes towards AIs and the adoption of AI systems [18,54,56].”

    From The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of One (2025) · cites this paper as [54]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Linda Argote and Paul S. Goodman. 1985. The organizational implications of robotics. In Managing Technological Innovation, D.D. Davis (Ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, USA, 127-153.
  2. Linda Argote, Paul S. Goodman, and David Schkade. 1983. The Human Side of Robotics: How Workers React to a Robot. Sloan Management Review 24 (June 1983), 19-32.
  3. Wan-Ling Chang, Selma Šabanović, and Lesa Huber. 2013. Situated Analysis of Interactions between Cognitively Impaired Older Adults and the Therapeutic Robot PARO. In Social Robotics, Guido Herrmann, Martin J. Pearson, Alexander Lenz, Paul Bremner, Adam Spiers, and Ute Leonards (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 371-380.
  4. Filipa Correia, Patrícia Alves-Oliveira, Tiago Ribeiro, Francisco Melo, and Ana Paiva. 2017. A social robot as a card game player. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (AIIDE '17). AAAI, Little Cottonwood Canyon, UT, USA, 23-29.
  5. Lorin Dole. 2017. The Influence of a Robot's Mere Presence on Human Communication. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ph. D. Dissertation. Stanford University, CA.
  6. Eunja Hyun and Hyunmin Yoon. 2009. Characteristics of young children's utilization of a robot during play time : A case study. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN '09). IEEE Press, Toyama, Japan, 675-680.
  7. M. Häring, D. Kuchenbrandt, and E. André. 2014. Would You Like to Play with Me? How Robots' Group Membership and Task Features Influence Human-Robot Interaction. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 9-16.
  8. Michita Imai, Takayuki Kanda, Testuo Ono, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Kenji Mase. 2002. Robot mediated round table: Analysis of the effect of robot's gaze. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN '02). IEEE Press, Berlin, Germany, 411-416.
  9. T. Iqbal and L. D. Riek. 2017. Coordination Dynamics in Multihuman Multirobot Teams. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 2, 3 (July 2017), 1712-1717. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2017.2673864 · DOI
  10. Robert Johansen. 1988. GroupWare: Computer Support for Business Teams. The Free Press, USA.
  11. Martin Johansson, Gabriel Skantze, and Joakim Gustafson. 2013. Head Pose Patterns in Multiparty Human-Robot Team-Building Interactions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 351-360.
  12. Malte Jung and Pamela Hinds. 2018. Robots in the Wild: A Time for More Robust Theories of Human-Robot Interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 7, 1 (2018), 2.
  13. Malte F Jung. 2016. Coupling interactions and performance: Predicting team performance from thin slices of conflict. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 23, 3 (2016), 18.
  14. Takayuki Kanda, Takayuki Hirano, Daniel Eaton, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2004. Interactive Robots as Social Partners and Peer Tutors for Children: A Field Trial. Human-Computer Interaction 19, 1-2 (2004), 61-84. https://doi.org/10. 1080/07370024.2004.9667340 arXiv:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07370024.2004.9667340 · DOI
  15. Hiroyuki Kidokoro, Takayuki Kanda, Dražen Brščic, and Masahiro Shiomi. 2013. Will I Bother Here?: A Robot Anticipating Its Influence on Pedestrian Walking Comfort. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (Tokyo, Japan) (HRI '13). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 259-266. http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=2447556.2447664
  16. Sara Kiesler, Aaron Powers, Susan R Fussell, and Cristen Torrey. 2008. Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent. Social Cognition 26, 2 (2008), 169-181.
  17. Kanae Kochigami, Kei Okada, and Masayuki Inaba. 2018. Does an Introduction of a Person in a Group by a Robot Have a Positive Effect on People's Communication?. In Proceedings of the 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN '18). IEEE Press, Nanjing, China, 692-698. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ROMAN.2018.8525686 · DOI
  18. Steve WJ Kozlowski and Bradford S Bell. 2012. Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition 12 (2012), 412-469.
  19. Dieta Kuchenbrandt, Friederike Eyssel, Simon Bobinger, and Maria Neufeld. 2013. When a robot's group membership matters. International Journal of Social Robotics 5, 3 (2013), 409-417.
  20. Minae Kwon, Mengxi Li, Alexandre Bucquet, and Dorsa Sadigh. 2019. Influencing Leading and Following in Human- Robot Teams. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems. FreiburgimBreisgau, Germany. https://doi.org/10.15607/ RSS.2019.XV.075 · DOI
  21. John M Levine and Richard L Moreland. 1990. Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology 41, 1 (1990), 585-634.
  22. John M. Levine and Richard L. Moreland. 1998. Small Groups. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (Eds.). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 415-496.
  23. Kurt Lewin et al. 1947. Group decision and social change. Readings in Social Psychology 3, 1 (1947), 197-211.
  24. Daniel Leyzberg, Samuel Spaulding, Mariya Toneva, and Brian Scassellati. 2012. The physical presence of a robot tutor increases cognitive learning gains. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, 1882-1887.
  25. Brian Lickel, David L Hamilton, Grazyna Wieczorkowska, Amy Lewis, Steven J Sherman, and A Neville Uhles. 2000. Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of personality and social psychology 78, 2 (2000), 223.
  26. Phoebe Liu, Dylan F. Glas, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2013. It's Not Polite to Point: Generating Socially-appropriate Deictic Behaviors Towards People. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (Tokyo, Japan) (HRI '13). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 267-274. http: //dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2447556.2447665
  27. Bertram F Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Thomas Arnold, John Voiklis, and Corey Cusimano. 2015. Sacrifice one for the good of many? People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 117-124.
  28. Bertram F Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Jodi Forlizzi, and John Voiklis. 2016. Which robot am I thinking about? The impact of action and appearance on people's evaluations of a moral robot. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 125-132.
  29. Serena Marchesi, Davide Ghiglino, Francesca Ciardo, Ebru Baykara, and Agnieszka Wykowska. 2019. Do we adopt the Intentional Stance towards humanoid robots? Frontiers in Psychology 10 (2019), 450.
  30. Yosuke Matsusaka, Shinya Fujie, and Tetsunori Kobayashi. 2001. Modeling of conversational strategy for the robot participating in the group conversation. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology. International Speech Communication Association, Baixas, France, 2173-2176.
  31. Yoichi Matsuyama, Iwao Akiba, Shinya Fujie, and Tetsunori Kobayashi. 2015. Four-participant Group Conversation: A facilitation robot controlling engagement density as the fourth participant. Computer Speech & Language 33, 1 (2015), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2014.12.001 · DOI
  32. Christoforos Mavrogiannis, Alena M. Hutchinson, John Macdonald, Patrícia Alves-Oliveira, and Ross A. Knepper. 2019. Effects of Distinct Robot Navigation Strategies on Human Behavior in a Crowded Environment. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '19). IEEE Press, Daegu, South Korea, 421-430. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673115 · DOI
  33. Eric Monteiro, Neil Pollock, Ole Hanseth, and Robin Williams. 2013. From artefacts to infrastructures. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 22, 4-6 (2013), 575-607.
  34. Richard L Moreland. 2010. Are dyads really groups? Small Group Research 41, 2 (2010), 251-267.
  35. Shogo Nabe, Takayuki Kanda, Kazuo Hiraki, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Kiyoshi Kogure, and Norihiro Hagita. 2006. Analysis of Human Behavior to a Communication Robot in an Open Field. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-robot Interaction (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA) (HRI '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 234-241. https://doi.org/10.1145/1121241.1121282 · DOI
  36. Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues 56, 1 (2000), 81-103.
  37. Carman Neustaedter, Samarth Singhal, Rui Pan, Yasamin Heshmat, Azadeh Forghani, and John Tang. 2018. From Being There to Watching: Shared and Dedicated Telepresence Robot Usage at Academic Conferences. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 25, 6, Article 33 (Dec. 2018), 39 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3243213 · DOI
  38. Carman Neustaedter, Gina Venolia, Jason Procyk, and Daniel Hawkins. 2016. To Beam or Not to Beam: A Study of Remote Telepresence Attendance at an Academic Conference. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (San Francisco, California, USA) (CSCW '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 418-431. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819922 · DOI
  39. André Pereira, Iolanda Leite, Samuel Mascarenhas, Carlos Martinho, and Ana Paiva. 2011. Using Empathy to Improve Human-Robot Relationships. In Human-Robot Personal Relationships, Maarten H. Lamers and Fons J. Verbeek (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 130-138.
  40. Elizabeth Phillips, Scott Ososky, Janna Grove, and Florian Jentsch. 2011. From tools to teammates: Toward the development of appropriate mental models for intelligent robots. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 55, 1 (2011), 1491-1495.
  41. Byron Reeves and Clifford Ivar Nass. 1996. The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Center for the Study of Language and Information; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  42. Alessandra Maria Sabelli, Takayuki Kanda, and Norihiro Hagita. 2011. A conversational robot in an elderly care center: an ethnographic study. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 37-44.
  43. Pedro Sequeira, Patrícia Alves-Oliveira, Tiago Ribeiro, Eugenio Di Tullio, Sofia Petisca, Francisco S. Melo, Ginevra Castellano, and Ana Paiva. 2016. Discovering Social Interaction Strategies for Robots from Restricted-Perception Wizard-of-Oz Studies. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (Christchurch, New Zealand) (HRI '16). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 197-204. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 2906831.2906866
  44. Solace Shen, Hamish Tennent, and Malte Jung. 2017. Robot chameleons and small group decision making: The case of conformity (INGroup '17). INGRoup, 1-21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320024947_Robot_ Chameleons_and_Small_Group_Decision_Making_The_Case_of_Conformity
  45. Muzafer Sherif. 1937. An experimental approach to the study of attitudes. Sociometry 1, 1/2 (1937), 90-98.
  46. Masahiro Shiomi, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2010. A Larger Audience, Please!: Encour- aging People to Listen to a Guide Robot. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (Osaka, Japan) (HRI '10). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 31-38. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 1734454.1734469
  47. Hirokazu Shirado and Nicholas A Christakis. 2017. Locally noisy autonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments. Nature 545, 7654 (2017), 370.
  48. JaYoung Sung, Rebecca E. Grinter, and Henrik I. Christensen. 2010. Domestic robot ecology. International Journal of Social Robotics 2, 4 (2010), 417-429.
  49. Henri Tajfel. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology 33, 1 (1982), 1-39.
  50. Henri Tajfel. 2010. Social identity and intergroup relations. Vol. 7. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sebo, S., Stoll, B., Scassellati, B., & Jung, M. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2020-10-14
Volume
4
Issue
CSCW2
Pages
1-36
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1145/3415247
OpenAlex
W3093827093
Cited by
158
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 11 · 2018: 1
FWCI
15.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-18-1-2776)
  • Division of Information and Intelligent Systems (1813651, 1421929, 1563705)
  • Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (1928448)
  • Office of Integrative Activities (1936970)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
human-robot interaction, group dynamics, nonverbal behavior, robot personality, interpersonal interaction, social robots, collective 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