In two studies (N = 453), we attempted to replicate a widely cited finding by Eyssel & Kuchenbrandt (2012): German participants evaluated a robot labeled as “from Germany” more positively than one labeled as “from Türkiye,” an effect originally interpreted as evidence of intergroup bias toward robots. Strikingly, across both of our studies, this effect did not emerge. Participants showed no preference for the “ingroup” robot over the “outgroup” robot, challenging the assumption that social biases extend to robots. Our research sought to clarify when and how intergroup bias toward robots develops, and whether ingroup identification moderates such effects. To better understand the original pattern of results, we also explored alternative explanations, including country-related stereotypes, attitudes toward people and products from Germany and Türkiye, and country-of-origin (“made-in”) effects. Yet none of these factors consistently accounted for participants’ evaluations. The failure to replicate this influential finding has important implications for the HRI community. It raises questions about the conditions under which social psychological theories can be applied to robots and highlights the need for careful theoretical grounding when interpreting findings from studies with robots. We discuss why intergroup bias may not have appeared in our studies, under what circumstances it might still emerge, and how human–robot interactions may differ fundamentally from human–human ones.
Abrams et al. (Sun,) studied this question.