[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3610978.3640687acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Open access

Multiplayer Space Invaders: A Platform for Studying Evolving Fairness Perceptions in Human-Robot Interaction

Published: 11 March 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Current methods of measuring fairness in human-robot interaction (HRI) research often gauge perceptions of fairness at the conclusion of a task. However, this methodology overlooks the dynamic nature of fairness perceptions, which may shift and evolve as a task progresses. To help address this gap, we introduce a platform designed to help investigate the evolution of fairness over time: the Multiplayer Space Invaders game. This three-player game is structured such that two players work to eliminate as many of their own enemies as possible while a third player makes decisions about which player to support throughout the game. In this paper, we discuss different potential experimental designs facilitated by this platform. A key aspect of these designs is the inclusion of a robot that operates the supporting ship and must make multiple decisions about which player to aid throughout a task. We discuss how capturing fairness perceptions at different points in the game could give us deeper insights into how perceptions of fairness fluctuate in response to different variables and decisions made in the game.

Supplemental Material

MP4 File
Supplemental video

References

[1]
Sheldon Alexander and Marian Ruderman. 1987. The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social justice research, Vol. 1, 2 (1987), 177--198.
[2]
Maureen L Ambrose, Mark A Seabright, and Marshall Schminke. 2002. Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, Vol. 89, 1 (2002), 947--965.
[3]
Thomas Arnold and Matthias Scheutz. 2018. Observing robot touch in context: How does touch and attitude affect perceptions of a robot's social qualities?. In 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 352--360.
[4]
Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-Francc ois Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. The moral machine experiment. Nature, Vol. 563, 7729 (2018), 59--64.
[5]
Robert Axelrod. 1980. Effective choice in the prisoner's dilemma. Journal of conflict resolution, Vol. 24, 1 (1980), 3--25.
[6]
Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Fairness in machine learning. Nips tutorial, Vol. 1 (2017), 2.
[7]
Kate Candon, Zoe Hsu, Yoony Kim, Jesse Chen, Nathan Tsoi, and Marynel Vázquez. 2022. Perceptions of the Helpfulness of Unexpected Agent Assistance. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. 41--50.
[8]
Kate Candon, Helen Zhou, Sarah Gillet, and Marynel Vázquez. 2023. Verbally Soliciting Human Feedback in Continuous Human-Robot Collaboration: Effects of the Framing and Timing of Reminders. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 290--300.
[9]
Vivienne Bihe Chi and Bertram F Malle. 2023. People dynamically update trust when interactively teaching robots. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. HRI, Vol. 23. 554--564.
[10]
Houston Claure, Yifang Chen, Jignesh Modi, Malte Jung, and Stefanos Nikolaidis. 2020. Multi-armed bandits with fairness constraints for distributing resources to human teammates. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 299--308.
[11]
Jason A Colquitt, Jerald Greenberg, and J Greenberg. 2003. Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2003), 159--200.
[12]
Munjal Desai, Mikhail Medvedev, Marynel Vázquez, Sean McSheehy, Sofia Gadea-Omelchenko, Christian Bruggeman, Aaron Steinfeld, and Holly Yanco. 2012. Effects of changing reliability on trust of robot systems. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 73--80.
[13]
Cinzia Di Dio, Federico Manzi, Shoji Itakura, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Davide Massaro, and Antonella Marchetti. 2020. It does not matter who you are: fairness in pre-schoolers interacting with human and robotic partners. International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol. 12, 5 (2020), 1045--1059.
[14]
Marlena R Fraune, Steven Sherrin, Selma vS abanović, and Eliot R Smith. 2019. Is human-robot interaction more competitive between groups than between individuals?. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 104--113.
[15]
David A Jones and Daniel P Skarlicki. 2013. How perceptions of fairness can change: A dynamic model of organizational justice. Organizational psychology review, Vol. 3, 2 (2013), 138--160.
[16]
Malte F Jung, Dominic DiFranzo, Solace Shen, Brett Stoll, Houston Claure, and Austin Lawrence. 2020. Robot-Assisted Tower Construction-A Method to Study the Impact of a Robot's Allocation Behavior on Interpersonal Dynamics and Collaboration in Groups. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), Vol. 10, 1 (2020), 1--23.
[17]
Michael Koenigs and Daniel Tranel. 2007. Irrational economic decision-making after ventromedial prefrontal damage: evidence from the Ultimatum Game. Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 27, 4 (2007), 951--956.
[18]
Jamie Large, Graham Stodolski, and Marynel Vázquez. 2020. Studying Human-Agent Interactions in Space Invaders. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. 245--247.
[19]
Michael Mateas. 2003. Expressive AI: Games and Artificial Intelligence. In DiGRA Conference, Vol. 15. Citeseer.
[20]
Bilge Mutlu, Toshiyuki Shiwa, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2009. Footing in human-robot conversations: how robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. 61--68.
[21]
Mayada Oudah, Vahan Babushkin, Tennom Chenlinangjia, and Jacob W Crandall. 2015. Learning to interact with a human partner. In 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 311--318.
[22]
Eduardo Ben'itez Sandoval, Jürgen Brandstatter, Utku Yalcin, and Christoph Bartneck. 2021. Robot likeability and reciprocity in human robot interaction: Using ultimatum game to determinate reciprocal likeable robot strategies. International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol. 13, 4 (2021), 851--862.
[23]
Paul G Straub and J Keith Murnighan. 1995. An experimental investigation of ultimatum games: Information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 27, 3 (1995), 345--364.
[24]
Debora Zanatto, Massimiliano Patacchiola, Jeremy Goslin, Serge Thill, and Angelo Cangelosi. 2020. Do humans imitate robots? An investigation of strategic social learning in human-robot interaction. In 2020 15th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 449--457.

Index Terms

  1. Multiplayer Space Invaders: A Platform for Studying Evolving Fairness Perceptions in Human-Robot Interaction

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      HRI '24: Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
      March 2024
      1408 pages
      ISBN:9798400703232
      DOI:10.1145/3610978
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 11 March 2024

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. fairness
      2. human-robot interaction
      3. resource allocation

      Qualifiers

      • Short-paper

      Funding Sources

      Conference

      HRI '24
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 188
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)188
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)36
      Reflects downloads up to 13 Dec 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Login options

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media