Do the number of robots and the participant’s gender influence conformity effect from multiple robots?

References

• Sherif M. A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology (Columbia University); 1935. ( No. 187).
   Google Scholar
• Asch SE. Opinions and social pressure. Sci Am. 1955;193:17–26. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asch SE. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In: Guetzkow H, editor. Groups, leadership and men; research in human relations. Oxford, UK: Carnegie Press; 1951. p. 177–190.
   Google Scholar
• Spencer RW, Huston JH. Rational forecasts: on confirming ambiguity as the mother of conformity. J Econ Psychol. 1993;14(4):697–709. doi: 10.1016/0167-4870(93)90017-F
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griskevicius V, Goldstein NJ, Mortensen CR, et al. Going along versus going alone: when fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non) conformity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;91(2):281. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.281
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly AH. Sex differences in social behavior: a social-role interpretation. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1987. (John M. MacEachran memorial lecture series; 1985).
   Google Scholar
• Leaper C, Ayres MM. A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2007;11(4):328–363. doi: 10.1177/1088868307302221
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosander M, Eriksson O. Conformity on the internet – the role of task difficulty and gender differences. Comput Human Behav. 2012;28(5):1587–1595. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midden C, Ham J, Baten J. Conforming to an artificial majority: persuasive effects of a group of artificial agents. In: T. MacTavish, S. Basapur, editors. Persuasive technology: 10th international conference, PERSUASIVE 2015, Chicago, IL, USA, June 3–5, 2015, Proceedings. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 229–240.
   Google Scholar
• Shinozawa K, Naya F, Yamato J, et al. Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2005;62(2):267–279. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powers A, Kiesler S, Fussell S, et al. Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI); 2007 . p. 145–152.
   Google Scholar
• Brandstetter J, Racz P, Beckner C, et al. A peer pressure experiment: recreation of the Asch conformity experiment with robots. IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2014); 2014 . p. 1335–1340.
   Google Scholar
• Salomons N, Linden MVD, Sebo SS, et al. Humans conform to robots: disambiguating trust, truth, and conformity. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Chicago, IL, 2018, p. 187–195.
   Google Scholar
• Vollmer A-L, Read R, Trippas D, et al. Children conform, adults resist: a robot group induced peer pressure on normative social conformity. Sci Rob. 2018;3(21). DOI:10.1126/scirobotics.aat7111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves B, Nass C. How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge University Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Berns GS, Chappelow J, Zink CF, et al. Neurobiological correlates of social conformity and independence during mental rotation. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;58(3):245–253. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsyth D. Group dynamics. Cengage Learning; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Hiroi Y, Ito A. Influence of the size factor of a mobile robot moving toward a human on subjective acceptable distance. In: Zoran Gacovski, editor, Mobile robots – current trends; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Fraune MR, Sherrin S, Sabanović S, et al. Rabble of robots effects: number and type of robots modulates attitudes, emotions, and stereotypes. Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, 2015 , p. 109–116.
   Google Scholar
• Siegel M, Breazeal C, Norton MI. Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2009 (IROS 2009), 2009 . p. 2563–2568.
   Google Scholar
• Kahn PH, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, et al. “Robovie, you'll have to go into the closet now”: children's social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev Psychol. 2012;48(2):303. doi: 10.1037/a0027033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayashi K, Shiomi M, Kanda T, et al. Are robots appropriate for troublesome and communicative tasks in a city environment? IEEE Trans Auton Ment Dev. 2012;4(2):150–160. doi: 10.1109/TAMD.2011.2178846
   Google Scholar
• Kanda T, Shiomi M, Miyashita Z, et al. A communication robot in a shopping mall. IEEE Trans Robot. 2010;26(5):897–913. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2010.2062550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiomi M, Kanda T, Howley I, et al. Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? Int J Soc Robot. 2015;7(5):641–652. doi: 10.1007/s12369-015-0303-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar