Content uploaded by Clarissa Sabrina Arlinghaus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Clarissa Sabrina Arlinghaus on Dec 05, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Being ignored is not the only possible form of social exclusion in human-agent
interaction
Clarissa Sabrina Arlinghaus
Center for Cognitive Interaction Technology & Work and Organizational Psychology, Bielefeld University,
clarissa_sabrina.arlinghaus@uni-bielefeld.de
Günter W. Maier
Work and Organizational Psychology & Research Institute for Cognition and Robotics, Bielefeld University,
ao-psychologie@uni-bielefeld.de
In a world where humans and technical agents (e.g., robots, AI) work collaboratively, processes of social inclusion and exclusion
in human-agent interaction (HAI) gain importance. However, the current focus of social exclusion in HAI is too narrowminded
and neglects many forms of social exclusion (e.g., averted eye gazes, microaggressions, hurtful laughter). To change this, the effects
of different types of social exclusion will be explored in a series of experiments against the background of William’s need-threat
model [34]. By doing so, we will test the transferability of the model, build a HAI-specific taxonomy, and derive prevention
strategies. We look forward to interdisciplinary discussions about this topic and hope to receive valuable feedback and inspiration
for the presented PhD project which has just started a few months ago.
CCS CONCEPTS • Human-centered computing -> Human computer interaction (HCI) -> HCI theory, concepts and
models • Human-centered computing -> Collaborative and social computing -> Collaborative and social computing
theory, concepts and paradigms -> Computer-supported cooperative work • Human-centered computing ->
Collaborative and social computing -> Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing
Additional Keywords and Phrases: social exclusion, human-agent interaction, human-robot collaboration, need-
threat
ACM Reference Format:
Clarissa Sabrina Arlinghaus and Günter W. Maier. 2023. Being ignored is not the only possible form of social exclusion in human-
agent interaction. In HAI ‘23: The Importance of Human Factors for Trusted Human-Robot Collaborations, December 04–07, 2023,
Gothenburg, Sweden. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4 pages.
1 INTRODUCTION
Today’s working environment is transforming into a hybrid world where humans and technical agents (e.g., AI,
robots) are expected to work collaboratively [9, 22, 30]. For example, humans and robots can collaborate in
2
personnel selection [14, 20, 26] or manufacturing processes [2, 25]. Moreover, AI support teachers during exams
[18], journalists during research [1, 4, 29] or physicians with diagnostics [27, 31]. The paradigm “Computers Are
Social Actors” (CASA) states that people treat computers like human beings [17]. Unfortunately, this does not only
apply to desirable behavior. People abuse robots [11, 12, 21], even in childhood [19, 35, 36]. Robots can be the
reason for bullying situations among employees as well as they can initiate workplace bullying themselves [5]. It is
also well known that robots [8] or AIs can be biased and therefore discriminate against certain people [13, 23].
While the discussion centers around terms like "abuse," "bullying," or "discrimination," it ignores that these are
only some forms of social exclusion. There are also other forms of social exclusion (e.g., dehumanization,
microaggressions) which all entail severe consequences (e.g., alienation, depression, helplessness) in the long run
[32] but have been neglected in HAI research so far. We will address this research gap by exploring various types
of social exclusion in HAI in light of Williams’ famous need-threat model [34] to enhance prosilience and long-term
robustness through human-centered design. In order to understand the broadness of social exclusion and to
differentiate the forms of social exclusion from each other, a taxonomy is necessary, which we want to develop. We
also want to engage in interdisciplinary discussion on how to prevent social exclusion in HAI.
2 RELATED WORK
There are plenty of definitions of “social exclusion” [3], with lack of participation usually being a core aspect [16].
In psychology, we often distinguish between ostracism-based exclusion (e.g., averted eye gaze, ignoring, silent
treatment) and rejection-based exclusion (e.g., dehumanization, microaggression, hurtful laughter) [32]. According
to Williams’ temporal need-threat model, ostracism triggers need-threat, which is reflected in a decrease in human
needs (i.e., belonging, self-esteem, meaningful existence, control). If people’s need-fortification strategies (e.g.,
compliance, retaliation) fail, severe consequences (e.g., alienation, depression, helplessness) will occur [34].
Williams’ need-threat model [34] was mainly researched with the software “Cyberball” where players can be
included or ignored in a virtual ball game [33]. In 120 Cyberball studies, need-threat has been widely demonstrated
[7]. Some studies also proved need-threat when ignored by computers [10, 37] or robots [6, 15, 28]. However, other
forms of social exclusion like averted eye gazes, micro-agressions, or hurtful laughter have not been explored in
HAI yet. Nevertheless, we assume that all forms of social exclusion can cause need-threat and thus potentially harm
users. For a safe, robust, inclusive, and trusted HAI, more forms of social exclusion and their consequences should
be investigated and prevented during the development of technical agents.
3 OUTLOOK
It is crucial to ensure the (psychological) well-being of users and protect them from potential damage. Ostracism
and rejection are just umbrella terms where it remains unclear what subforms play a crucial role in HAI. Perhaps
some forms of social exclusion seem more severe in HAI than others. Some forms of social exclusion may not even
be perceived as exclusive in HAI. There is a need for an HAI-specific taxonomy of social exclusion that considers
human perception during HAI. Therefore, we will explore various forms of social exclusion in HAI in a series of
experiments to compare effects, deepen understanding, build a HAI-specific taxonomy, test the transferability of
Williams’ need-threat model [34], and derive prevention strategies. For this purpose, we will conduct vignette
studies where subjects should imagine one form of social exclusion in HAI settings. We will vary the form of social
exclusion and assess the subjects’ needs and need-fortification strategies with questionnaire items.
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
SAIL [24] is funded by the Ministry of Culture and Science of the North Rhine-Westphalia under the grant no NW21-
059A.
REFERENCES
[1] Maha Abdulmajeed and Nagwa Fahmy. 2023. Meta-analysis of
AI Research in J ournalism: Challenges, Opportunities and
Future Research Agenda for Arab Journalism. In From the
Internet of Things to the Internet of Ideas: The Role of Artificial
Intelligence. EAMMIS 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and
Systems, Volume 557, November 2022. Springer, Cham, 213-
225. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17746-0_18
[2] Alexander Arntz, Sabrina C. Eimler, and H. Ulrich Hoppe. 2020.
Augmenting the Human-Robot Communication Channel in
Shared Task Environments. In Proceedings of the 26th
International Conference of Collaboration Technologies and
Social Computing (CollabTech ’20), September 8 – 11, 2020,
Tartu, Estonia. Springer, Cham, 20-34.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58157-2_2
[3] Carsten Kronborg Bak. 2018. Definitions and Measurement of
Social Exclusion – A Conceptual and Methodological Review.
Advances in Applied Sociology 8, 5 (May 2018), 422-443.
https://doi.org/10.4236/aasoci.2018.85025
[4] João Canavilhas. 2022. Artificial Intelligence and Journalism:
Current Situation and Expectations in the Portuguese Sports
Media. Journalism and Media 3, 3 (August 2022), 510-520.
https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia3030035
[5] Premilia D’Cruz and Erenesto Noronha. 2021. Workplace
Bullying in the Context of Robotization: Contemplating the
Future of the Field. In Concepts, Approaches and Methods,
January 2021. Springer, Singapore, 293-321.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0134-6_22
[6] Hadas Erel, Yoav Cohen, Klil Shafrir, Sara Daniela Levy, Idan
Dov Vidra, Tzachi Shem Tov, and Oren Zuckerman. 2021.
Excluded by Robots: Can Robot-Robot-Human Interaction
Lead to Ostracism? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
(HRI ’21), March 8 – 11, 2021, Boulder, USA. ACM, New York,
NY, USA, 312-321.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3434073.3444648
[7] Chris H. J. Hartgerink, Ilja van Beest, Jelte M. Wicherts, and
Kipling D. Williams. 2015. The Ordinal Effects of Ostracism: A
Meta-Analysis of 120 Cyberball Studies. PLOS ONE 10, 5,
Article e0127002 (May 2015), 24 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127002
[8] Tom Hitron, Benny Megidish, Etay Todress, Noa Morag, and
Hadas Erel. 2022. AI bias in Human-Robot Interaction: An
evaluation of the Risk in Gender Biased Robots. In Proceedings
of the 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human
Interactive Communication (RO-MAN ‘22), August 29 –
September 02, 2022, Napoli, Italy. IEEE. 1598-1605.
https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN53752.2022.9900673
[9] John Howard. 2019. Artificial intelligence: Implications for the
future of work. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 62, 11
(July 2019), 917-926. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23037
[10] Melissa Jauch, Selma Carolin Rudert, and Rainer Greifeneder.
2022. Social pain by non-social agents: Exclusion hurts and
provokes punishment even if the excluding source is a
computer. Acta Psychologica 230, Article 103753 (September
2022), 19 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103753
[11] Merel Keijsers, Christoph Bartneck, and Friederike Eyssel.
2021. What’s to bullying a bot? Correlates between chatbots
humanlikeness and abuse. Interaction Studies 22, 1
(September 2021), 55-80.
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.20002.kei
[12] Merel Keijsers, Hussain Kazmi, Friederike Eyssel , and
Christoph Bartneck. 2021. Teaching Robots a Lesson:
Determinants of Robot Punishment. International Journal of
Social Robotics 13 (December 2019), 41-54.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00608-w
[13] Alina Köchling and Marius Claus Wehner. 2020. Discriminated
by an algorithm: A systematic review of discrimination and
fairness by algorithm decision-making in the context of HR
recruitment and HR development. Business Research 13
(November 2020), 795-848.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00134-w
[14] Lisa Masjutin, Jessica K. Laing, and Günter W. Maier. 2022.
Why do We Follow Robots? An Experimental Investigation of
Conformity with Robot, Human, and Hybrid Majorities. In
Proceedings of the 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’22), March 7 – 10, 2022,
Sapporo, Japan. IEEE. 139-146.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889675
[15] Sara Mongile, Giulia Pusceddu, Francesca Cocchella, Linda
Lastrico, Giulia Belgiovine, Ana Tanevska, Francesco Rea, and
Alessandra Sciutti. 2023. What if a Social Robot Excluded you?
Using a Conversational Game to Study Social Exclusion in
Teen-robot Mixed Groups. In Companion of the 2023
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot
Interaction (HRI ’23), March 13 – 16, 2023, Stockholm,
Sweden. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 208-212.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3568294.3580073
[16] Craig Morgan, Tom Burns, R ay Fitzpatrick, Vanessa Pinfold,
and Stefan Priebe. 2007. Social exclusion and mental health.
Conceptual and methodological review. British Journal of
Psychiatry 191, 6 (December 2007), 477-483.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.106.034942
[17] Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R. Tauber. 1994.
Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’94),
April 24 – 28, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts. ACM, New York,
NY, USA, 72-78. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703
4
[18] Aditya Nigam, Rhitvik Pasricha, Tarishi Singh, and
Prathamesh Churi. 2021. A Systematic Review on AI-based
Proctoring Systems: Past, Present and Future. Education and
Information Technologies 26 (June 2021), 6421-6445.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10597-x
[19] Tatsuya Nomura, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Kidokoro,
Yoshitaka Suehiro, and Sachie Yamada. 2016. Why do children
abuse robots? Interaction Studies 17, 3 (January 2016), 348-
370. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.02nom
[20] Sladjana Nørskov, Malene F. Damholdt, John P. Ulhøi, Morten
Berg Jensen, Mia Krogager Mathiasen, Charles M. Ess, and
Johanna Seibt. 2022. Employers’ and applicants’ fairness
perceptions in job interviews: using a teleoperated robot as a
fair proxy. Technological Forecasting and Social Ch ange 179,
Article 121641 (April 2022), 18 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121641
[21] Jo Ann Oravec. 2023. Rage against robots: Emotional and
motivational dimensions of anti-robot attacks, robot sabotage,
and robot bullying. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 189, Article 122249 (April 2023).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122249
[22] Sonja K. Ötting, Lisa Masjutin, Jochen J. Steil and Günter W.
Maier. 2020. Let’s Work Together: A M eta-Analysis on R obot
Design Features That Enable Successful Human-Robot
Interaction at Work. Human Factors: The Journal of Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society 64, 6 (November 2020), 1027-
1050. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820966433
[23] Dana Pessach and Erez Shmueli. 2021. Im proving fairness of
artificial intelligence algorithms in Privileged-Group Selection
Bias data settings. Expert Systems With Applications 185,
Article 115667 (December 2021), 14 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115667
[24] SAIL. 2023. SAIL - Sustainable Life-cycle of Intelligent Socio -
Technical Systems. Retrieved from https://www.sail.nrw/
[25] Alision Sauppé and Bilge Mutlu. 2015. The Social Impact of a
Robot Co-Worker in Industrial Settin gs. In Proceedings of the
33rd Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI ’15), April 18 – 23, 2015, Seoul, Korea. ACM, New
York, NY, 3613-3622.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702181
[26] Jessica Schick and Sebastian Fischer. 2021. Dear Computer on
My Desk, Which Candidate Fits Best? An Assessment of
Candidates’ Perception of Assessment Quality When Using AI
in Personnel Selection. Frontiers in Psychology 12, Article
73911 (October 2021), 11 pages.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.739711
[27] Michaela Soellner and Joerg Koeningstorfer. 2021.
Compliance with medical recommendations depending on the
use of artificial intelligence as a diagnostic method. BMC
Medical Informatics and Decision Making 21, Article 236
(August 2021), 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-
021-01596-6
[28] Sharon Ewa Spisak and Bipin Indurkhya. 2023. A Study on
Social Exclusion in Human-Robot Interaction. Electronics 12,
Article 1585 (March 2023), 17 pages.
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12071585
[29] Jonathan Stray. 2019. Marking Artificial Intelligence Work for
Investigative Journalism. Digital Journalism 7, 8 (July 2019),
1076-1097.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1630289
[30] Weiyu Wang and Keng Siau. 2019. Artificial Intelligence,
Machine Learning, Automation, Robotics, Future of Work and
Future of Humanity: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal
of Database Management 30, 1 (January 2019), 61-67.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/JDM.2019010104
[31] Edmund M. Weisberg, Linda C. Chu , and Elliot K. Fishman.
2020. The first use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the ER:
triage not diagnosis. Emergency Radiology 27 (July 2020), 361-
366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-020-01773-6
[32] Eric D. Wesselmann, Michelle R. Grzybowski, Diana M.
Steakley-Freeman, Eros R. DeSouza, John B. Nezlek, and
Kipling D. Williams. 2016. Social Exclusion in Everyday Life. In
Social Exclusion, July 2016. Springer, Cham, 3-23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33033-4_1
[33] Kipling D. Williams and Blair Jarvis. 2006. Cyberball: A
program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and
acceptance. Behavior Research Methods 38, 1 (February 2006),
174-180. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192765
[34] Kipling D. Williams. 2009. Ostracism: A Temporal Need-
Threat Model. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Volume 41, March 2009. El sevier Academic Press, 275-314.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1
[35] Sachie Yamada, Takayuki Kanda, and Kanako To mita. 2023.
Process of Escalating Robot Abuse in Children. International
Journal of Social Robotics 15 (April 2023), 835-853.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-00987-1
[36] Sachie Yamada, Takayuki Kanda, and Kanako To mita. 2020.
An Escalating Model of Children’s Robot Abuse. In Proceedings
of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-
Robot Interaction (HRI ’20), March 23-26, 2020, Cambridge,
United Kingdom. ACM, New York, NY, 191-199.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374833
[37] Lisa Zadro, Kipling D. Williams, and Rick Richardson. 2004.
How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to
lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem
and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 40, 4 (February 2004), 560-567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006
