ABSTRACT
In Hypotheses 2a and 2b, we argued for a main effect of status. We posited that people will rely more on a robotic partner and feel less responsible for the task when the partner is assigned a supervisory as compared with a subordinate or peer position relative to the participant. We found little support for Hypothesis 2a. People relied more on the robot peers than they did robot subordinates or supervisors (M= 4.41 supervisors vs. 4.60 peers vs. 4.51 subordinates), and the difference between the supervisor and the other status conditions was not significant, F[l, 182) = 1.13, p = .29. Analyzing Hypothesis 2b, participants reported feeling less responsible when collaborating with a robot supervisor as compared with a robot peer or subordinate (M= 4.74,4.80,4.94, respectively), but participants also reported that less credit was due to the partner when it was a supervisor, which is the opposite of what we had hypothesized (M= 4.08,4.39,4.47, respectively). Although the effect for responsibility was not significant, /'(l, 191) = .66, p = .42, when conducting two-way ANOVAs contrasting the supervisor condition with the other status conditions, the effect of status on attribution of credit was significant, F[ 1, 191) = 6.73, p= .01. That is, participants attributed significantly less credit to the robot supervisor as compared with the robot peer and subordinate. Paradoxically, we also found that participants were more likely to blame robot supervisors as compared with robot peers and subordinates for errors and mistakes that were made (M= 3.83, 3.07, 3.13, respectively) and that this differ
