Abstract: Automation is becoming ever more prevalent, with robot workers replacing many human employees. Many perspectives have examined the economic impact of a robot workforce, but here we consider its social impact: How will the rise of robot workers affect intergroup relations? Whereas some past research has suggested that more robots will lead to more intergroup prejudice, we suggest that robots could also reduce prejudice by highlighting commonalities between all humans. As robot workers become more salient, intergroup differences—including racial and religious differences—may seem less important, fostering a perception of common human identity (i.e., panhumanism). Six studies (ΣN = 3,312) support this hypothesis. Anxiety about the rising robot workforce predicts less anxiety about human outgroups (Study 1), and priming the salience of a robot workforce reduces prejudice toward outgroups (Study 2), makes people more accepting of outgroup members as leaders and family members (Study 3), and increases wage equality across ingroup and outgroup members in an economic simulation (Study 4). This effect is mediated by panhumanism (Studies 5–6), suggesting that the perception of a common human ingroup explains why robot salience reduces prejudice. We discuss why automation may sometimes exacerbate intergroup tensions and other times reduce them.
When Robots are Salient, Human Groups Don’t Seem So Different
Psychologists have long recognized the importance of categorization in social judgments. We are much kinder to someone categorized as a member of our “in-group” than to someone categorized as part of an “out-group” even if these people are indistinguishable from each other (Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel et al., 1971). For example, when strangers are split into two groups based on random coin-flips or the color of their nametag, people evaluate those in their own group more positively (and give them more money) compared with those in the other group (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Jackson et al., 2018).
In daily life, features such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality provide markers with which we can assign in-group and out-group identities. However, events can sometimes prompt social “recategorizations” that override these salient markers, making someone from a different race or nationality seem like part of one’s in-group (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Gaertner et al., 1989; Gaertner et al., 1993). Allport (1954) first noted that a person’s ingroups can vary hierarchically, ranging from one’s family and friends, to one’s country or race, to one’s status as human. Allport proposed that increasing the salience of common superordinate memberships can lead people to be more inclusive in terms of who they identify with and who they will cooperate with. Someone of a different race will be viewed less favorably when identity is classified in terms of one’s race, but more favorably when the perceiver adopts a broader panhuman identity, in which all humans are viewed as part of the in-group.
This perspective is now termed the Common In-Group Identity (CII) model (Gaertner et al. 1993), and it can be an effective way of reducing intergroup prejudice. For example, leading people to replace subordinate categories (“us and them”) with superordinate categories (“we”) can decrease prejudice and discrimination (Dovidio et al., 1997; Gaertner et al. 1989; Guerra et al., 2010; Riek et al., 2006), and inter-ethnicity roommates who defined themselves as part of a common human identity were more likely to develop friendships than roommates who defined themselves as part of their ethnic identity (West et al., 2009). Other research has shown that people’s tendency to identify with humanity as a whole (rather than subordinate groups such as one’s community or race) predicts less ethnocentrism and more out-group prosociality and concern with global humanitarian issues (McFarland, Brown, & Webb, 2013; McFarland, Webb, & Brown, 2012). These studies each suggest that prompting people to adopt a panhuman identity can decrease prejudice and discrimination towards out-groups.
We suggest that the salience of robot workers may increase panhumanism and reduce prejudice by highlighting the existence of a group (robots) that is not human. The large differences between humans and robots may make the differences between humans seem smaller than they normally appear. Christians and Muslims have different beliefs, but at least both are made from flesh and blood; Latinos and Asians may eat different foods, but at least they actually eat food. We therefore predict that, to the extent that the salience of robot workers increases people’s panhumanism, it may decrease prejudice and discrimination against human out-groups.
Psychologists have long recognized the importance of categorization in social judgments. We are much kinder to someone categorized as a member of our “in-group” than to someone categorized as part of an “out-group” even if these people are indistinguishable from each other (Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel et al., 1971). For example, when strangers are split into two groups based on random coin-flips or the color of their nametag, people evaluate those in their own group more positively (and give them more money) compared with those in the other group (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Jackson et al., 2018).
In daily life, features such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality provide markers with which we can assign in-group and out-group identities. However, events can sometimes prompt social “recategorizations” that override these salient markers, making someone from a different race or nationality seem like part of one’s in-group (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Gaertner et al., 1989; Gaertner et al., 1993). Allport (1954) first noted that a person’s ingroups can vary hierarchically, ranging from one’s family and friends, to one’s country or race, to one’s status as human. Allport proposed that increasing the salience of common superordinate memberships can lead people to be more inclusive in terms of who they identify with and who they will cooperate with. Someone of a different race will be viewed less favorably when identity is classified in terms of one’s race, but more favorably when the perceiver adopts a broader panhuman identity, in which all humans are viewed as part of the in-group.
This perspective is now termed the Common In-Group Identity (CII) model (Gaertner et al. 1993), and it can be an effective way of reducing intergroup prejudice. For example, leading people to replace subordinate categories (“us and them”) with superordinate categories (“we”) can decrease prejudice and discrimination (Dovidio et al., 1997; Gaertner et al. 1989; Guerra et al., 2010; Riek et al., 2006), and inter-ethnicity roommates who defined themselves as part of a common human identity were more likely to develop friendships than roommates who defined themselves as part of their ethnic identity (West et al., 2009). Other research has shown that people’s tendency to identify with humanity as a whole (rather than subordinate groups such as one’s community or race) predicts less ethnocentrism and more out-group prosociality and concern with global humanitarian issues (McFarland, Brown, & Webb, 2013; McFarland, Webb, & Brown, 2012). These studies each suggest that prompting people to adopt a panhuman identity can decrease prejudice and discrimination towards out-groups.
We suggest that the salience of robot workers may increase panhumanism and reduce prejudice by highlighting the existence of a group (robots) that is not human. The large differences between humans and robots may make the differences between humans seem smaller than they normally appear. Christians and Muslims have different beliefs, but at least both are made from flesh and blood; Latinos and Asians may eat different foods, but at least they actually eat food. We therefore predict that, to the extent that the salience of robot workers increases people’s panhumanism, it may decrease prejudice and discrimination against human out-groups.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment