Are computers scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human–computer interaction

Moon, Youngme; Nass, Clifford

doi:10.1006/ijhc.1998.0199

Cited by 94 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Individuals may be more willing to "pass the buck" to the SA as a means of reducing accountability and potential negative consequences (Green et al, 2000;Moon and Nass, 1998;Serenko, 2007;Villena et al, 2009). By delegating to a SA, an individual can create distance in the event of a negative outcome with less guilt than when blaming another individual.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some managers may consider delegation to be a mechanism for passing blame in the case of poor task outcomes (Green et al, 2000;Moon and Nass, 1998;Serenko, 2007); however, poor performance by an agent also acts as a signal that the manager is not effectively managing subordinates or carefully selecting individuals capable of performing delegated tasks. Because poor agent performance negatively reflects on the manager, when managers perceive they are accountable for the performance they will be much more careful and less likely to delegate decisions, even to capable and appropriate agents (Green et al, 2000;Moon and Nass, 1998;Serenko, 2007).…”

Section: Perceived Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because poor agent performance negatively reflects on the manager, when managers perceive they are accountable for the performance they will be much more careful and less likely to delegate decisions, even to capable and appropriate agents (Green et al, 2000;Moon and Nass, 1998;Serenko, 2007).…”

Section: Perceived Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Buck Stops There: The Impact of Perceived Accountability and Control on the Intention to Delegate to Software Agents

Stout¹,

Dennis²,

Wells³

2014

THCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software agents with the ability to recommend actions, aid decision-making, and actually make decisions are becoming increasingly common. In many situations, users now choose whether or not to delegate tasks to these agents. While some research has examined software agents, relatively little is known about the factors that influence the intention to delegate decisions to them. An experiment was used to examine the influence of perceived accountability, extent of control, and trust in the agent on the intention to delegate a travel arrangement decision. Users were more likely to delegate to agents that gave them greater control by requiring them to approve the agent's recommendation before the decision was completed than to agents that performed the task autonomously without intervention after it was delegated. Contrary to expectations, intention to delegate increased as perceived accountability increased. Participants may perceive delegation as a means to shift blame from themselves to the agent and thus mitigate risk resulting from potential negative decision outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perceived Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Buck Stops There: The Impact of Perceived Accountability and Control on the Intention to Delegate to Software Agents

Stout¹,

Dennis²,

Wells³

2014

THCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, they can be sued, punished and even accused of immoral behavior, and are in many respects regarded as entities separated from both their employees and owners (who may be natural or juristic persons) 4 . Several studies show how humans attribute responsibility to computers (Friedman 1990;Friedman andMillett 1995, 1997;Moon and Nass 1998). For instance, in a study by Friedman and Millett (1995), 21% of the participants held a computer morally responsible for incorrect decisions in two scenarios; medical radiation treatments in which some patients were over-radiated, and evaluation of job seekers, in which the computer rejected qualified applicants.…”

Section: Moral Responsabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

On the moral responsibility of military robots

Hellström

2012

Ethics Inf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses mechanisms and principles for assignment of moral responsibility to intelligent robots, with special focus on military robots. We introduce the concept autonomous power as a new concept, and use it to identify the type of robots that call for moral considerations. It is furthermore argued that autonomous power, and in particular the ability to learn, is decisive for assignment of moral responsibility to robots. As technological development will lead to robots with increasing autonomous power, we should be prepared for a future when people blame robots for their actions. It is important to, already today, investigate the mechanisms that control human behavior in this respect. The results may be used when designing future military robots, to control unwanted tendencies to assign responsibility to the robots. Independent of the responsibility issue, the moral quality of robots' behavior should be seen as one of many performance measures by which we evaluate robots. How to design ethics based control systems should be carefully investigated already now. From a consequentialist view, it would indeed be highly immoral to develop robots capable of performing acts involving life and death, without including some kind of moral framework.

show abstract

“…Research on anthropomorphism (Duffy 2003;Złotowski , Strasser & Bartneck 2014), blame (Moon & Nass 1998;Serenko 2007;Kim & Hinds 2006;You, Nie, Suh & Sundar 2011;Koay, Syrdal, Walters & Dautenhahn 2009;Vilaza, Haselager, Campos, & Vuurpijl 2014;Malle, Scheutz, Arnold, Voiklis, & Cusimano 2015;Malle, Scheutz, Forlizzi, & Voiklis 2016) and examples of media and pop culture speaking of 'robot laws' (Clarke 1994) underline the possibility of humans -perhaps inappropriately-attributing moral responsibility to automated systems. Although legal solutions have been proposed for dealing with such conflicts (Asaro 2013), in daily life this may still have undesired implications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lack of Effort or Lack of Ability? Robot Failures and Human Perception of Agency and Responsibility

Woerdt

Haselager

2017

Communications in Computer and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on human interaction has shown that attributing agency to another agent has substantial consequences for the way we perceive and evaluate its actions. Specifically, considering an agent's actions related to either effort or ability can have important consequences for the attribution of responsibility. This study indicates that participants' interpretation of a robot failure in terms of effort -as opposed to abilitysignificantly increases their attribution of agency and -to some extent-moral responsibility to the robot. However a robot displaying lack of effort does not lead to the level of affective and behavioural reactions of participants normally found in reactions to other human agents.

show abstract

Are computers scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human–computer interaction

Cited by 94 publications

References 52 publications

The Buck Stops There: The Impact of Perceived Accountability and Control on the Intention to Delegate to Software Agents

The Buck Stops There: The Impact of Perceived Accountability and Control on the Intention to Delegate to Software Agents

On the moral responsibility of military robots

Lack of Effort or Lack of Ability? Robot Failures and Human Perception of Agency and Responsibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About