Do humans get lazier when robots help with tasks?

Do humans get lazier when robots help with tasks?
by Staff Writers
Berlin, Germany (SPX) Oct 19, 2023

Now that improvements in technology mean that some robots work alongside humans, there is evidence that those humans have learned to see them as team-mates - and teamwork can have negative as well as positive effects on people's performance. People sometimes relax, letting their colleagues do the work instead. This is called 'social loafing', and it's common where people know their contribution won't be noticed or they've acclimatized to another team member's high performance. Scientists at the Technical University of Berlin investigated whether humans social loaf when they work with robots.

"Teamwork is a mixed blessing," said Dietlind Helene Cymek, first author of the study in Frontiers in Robotics and AI. "Working together can motivate people to perform well but it can also lead to a loss of motivation because the individual contribution is not as visible. We were interested in whether we could also find such motivational effects when the team partner is a robot."

A helping hand
The scientists tested their hypothesis using a simulated industrial defect-inspection task: looking at circuit boards for errors. The scientists provided images of circuit boards to 42 participants. The circuit boards were blurred, and the sharpened images could only be viewed by holding a mouse tool over them. This allowed the scientists to track participants' inspection of the board.

Half of the participants were told that they were working on circuit boards that had been inspected by a robot called Panda. Although these participants did not work directly with Panda, they had seen the robot and could hear it while they worked. After examining the boards for errors and marking them, all participants were asked to rate their own effort, how responsible for the task they felt, and how they performed.

Looking but not seeing
At first sight, it looked as if the presence of Panda had made no difference - there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of time spent inspecting the circuit boards and the area searched. Participants in both groups rated their feelings of responsibility for the task, effort expended, and performance similarly.

But when the scientists looked more closely at participants' error rates, they realized that the participants working with Panda were catching fewer defects later in the task, when they'd already seen that Panda had successfully flagged many errors. This could reflect a 'looking but not seeing' effect, where people get used to relying on something and engage with it less mentally. Although the participants thought they were paying an equivalent amount of attention, subconsciously they assumed that Panda hadn't missed any defects.

"It is easy to track where a person is looking, but much harder to tell whether that visual information is being sufficiently processed at a mental level," said Dr Linda Onnasch, senior author of the study.

Safety at risk?
The authors warned that this could have safety implications. "In our experiment, the subjects worked on the task for about 90 minutes, and we already found that fewer quality errors were detected when they worked in a team," said Onnasch. "In longer shifts, when tasks are routine and the working environment offers little performance monitoring and feedback, the loss of motivation tends to be much greater. In manufacturing in general, but especially in safety-related areas where double checking is common, this can have a negative impact on work outcomes."

The scientists pointed out that their test has some limitations. While participants were told they were in a team with the robot and shown its work, they did not work directly with Panda. Additionally, social loafing is hard to simulate in the laboratory because participants know they are being watched.

"The main limitation is the laboratory setting," Cymek explained. "To find out how big the problem of loss of motivation is in human-robot interaction, we need to go into the field and test our assumptions in real work environments, with skilled workers who routinely do their work in teams with robots."

Research Report:Lean Back or Lean In? Exploring Social Loafing In Human-Robot Teams

ai.energy-daily.com analysis

Comprehensive Analyst Summary:

Relevance Scores:

1. Robotics Industry Analyst: 9/10
2. Stock and Finance Market Analyst: 7/10
3. Government Policy Analyst: 8/10

Main Points:

The article scrutinizes an intriguing area of human-robot collaboration by investigating the psychological phenomenon of 'social loafing' in the context of team efforts that include humans and robots. Conducted by scientists at the Technical University of Berlin, the study explores the potential for loss of human motivation, particularly when individuals are aware that their robotic counterparts are highly efficient.

Robotics Industry Perspective:

For the robotics industry, this study unveils a critical challenge. Although robots are intended to increase efficiency, their presence could paradoxically result in lower human productivity due to 'social loafing.' This issue may hinder the broader acceptance and seamless integration of collaborative robots in the industry. The study's implications touch on not only robot design but also worker training and system implementation.

Stock and Finance Market Perspective:

Investors and market analysts would find this data valuable as it presents a nuanced view of how robot integration might not always translate to increased overall productivity, particularly over long periods. This could affect the ROI calculations for companies considering substantial investments in collaborative robots. Hence, companies like Boston Dynamics, ABB, and Fanuc, which are spearheading the robotics domain, may need to address this issue to sustain market growth.

Government Policy Perspective:

From a policy standpoint, the article raises potential concerns about workplace safety and labor regulations. If human-robot teams can result in decreased attention to quality and safety, there could be serious implications, especially in fields like healthcare, aerospace, and manufacturing. Governments may need to develop new policy frameworks to address these issues.

Historical Comparison:

Comparing these findings with the past 25 years in the space and defense industry, a sector that has aggressively adopted automation and robotics, we see a resonance in the challenges faced. Just like the 'automation complacency' observed in drone pilots or astronauts, the 'social loafing' phenomenon seems to be a psychological aspect that technology alone cannot address.

Investigative Questions:

1. What kinds of training programs can be developed to mitigate the phenomenon of 'social loafing' in human-robot collaborative settings?

2. How do these findings relate to productivity metrics across industries that have already widely adopted robotic help?

3. Are there any social or cultural variables that influence the tendency to engage in 'social loafing' when working with robots?

4. What policy changes should governments consider to maintain workplace safety standards in a human-robot collaborative environment?

5. How will the insights from this study affect stock valuation and market strategies for companies heavily invested in robotics?

In summary, the article opens up a multi-faceted discussion that has profound implications for the robotics industry, financial markets, and government policy. It shows that while robotic integration is often viewed through the lens of efficiency and innovation, human factors can introduce complexities that require a multidisciplinary approach for resolution.