Can a robot bribe a human? The measurement of the negative side of reciprocity in human robot interaction

Sandoval, Eduardo Benítez; Brandstetter, Jürgen; Bartneck, Christoph

doi:10.1109/hri.2016.7451742

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fairness has been considered in robot design [36] and humans commonly exhibit biases toward machines as more systematic and unbiased than humans [37]. A cheating robot is perceived as more agentic [38] and people may defend a bribing robot [39]. Notably, people may see machines as having lower moral authority over fairness, feeling less guilty when cheating in front of a robot versus a human [40].…”

Section: Fairness/cheatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good Robots, Bad Robots: Morally Valenced Behavior Effects on Perceived Mind, Morality, and Trust

Banks

2020

Int J of Soc Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both robots and humans can behave in ways that engender positive and negative evaluations of their behaviors and associated responsibility. However, extant scholarship on the link between agent evaluations and valenced behavior has generally treated moral behavior as a monolithic phenomenon and largely focused on moral deviations. In contrast, contemporary moral psychology increasingly considers moral judgments to unfold in relation to a number of moral foundations (care, fairness, authority, loyalty, purity, liberty) subject to both upholding and deviation. The present investigation seeks to discover whether social judgments of humans and robots emerge differently as a function of moral foundation-specific behaviors. This work is conducted in two studies: (1) an online survey in which agents deliver observed/mediated responses to moral dilemmas and (2) a smaller laboratory-based replication with agents delivering interactive/live responses. In each study, participants evaluate the goodness of and blame for six foundation-specific behaviors, and evaluate the agent for perceived mind, morality, and trust. Across these studies, results suggest that (a) moral judgments of behavior may be agent-agnostic, (b) all moral foundations may contribute to social evaluations of agents, and (c) physical presence and agent class contribute to the assignment of responsibility for behaviors. Findings are interpreted to suggest that bad behaviors denote bad actors, broadly, but machines bear a greater burden to behave morally, regardless of their credit- or blame-worthiness in a situation.

show abstract

Section: Fairness/cheatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good Robots, Bad Robots: Morally Valenced Behavior Effects on Perceived Mind, Morality, and Trust

Banks

2020

Int J of Soc Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, robot bullying has been operationalised as reducing a robot's electrical power supply [4,19] or using abusive language [5]. Using the framework of Game Theory, robots have also been withheld points or money [31].…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The morality of abusing a robot

Bartneck

Keijsers

2020

Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractIt is not uncommon for humans to exhibit abusive behaviour towards robots. This study compares how abusive behaviour towards a human is perceived differently in comparison with identical behaviour towards a robot. We showed participants 16 video clips of unparalleled quality that depicted different levels of violence and abuse. For each video, we asked participants to rate the moral acceptability of the action, the violence depicted, the intention to harm, and how abusive the action was. The results indicate no significant difference in the perceived morality of the actions shown in the videos across the two victim agents. When the agents started to fight back, their reactive aggressive behaviour was rated differently. Humans fighting back were seen as less immoral compared with robots fighting back. A mediation analysis showed that this was predominately due to participants perceiving the robot’s response as more abusive than the human’s response.

show abstract

“…理论上来说, 这些均为简单的计算性任务, 人类出于对机器人计算能力的信任服从于它们并不为过, 但社会任务呢? 研究发现, 人们会对机器人的贿赂行为视而不见, 也不给予其互惠帮助 [120] ; 但人类与机器人进行任务时会减少腐败 [121] 、增加慈善捐助行为 [122] , 这可能是因为人类忌惮机器人的完全理性监视 [123] . 对机器人的过度信任可能均源于人类对机器人有不切实际的过高能力期望 [124] , 人们甚至会因为与机器人的互动增加自我效能与对完成任务时的自我评价 [125] 、增加创造力 [126] .…”

Section: 所有被试都还是在紧急情况下遵从了机器人的指示;unclassified

Factors that influence robot acceptance

Xu¹,

Ye²

2019

Chin. Sci. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can a robot bribe a human? The measurement of the negative side of reciprocity in human robot interaction

Cited by 23 publications

References 19 publications

Good Robots, Bad Robots: Morally Valenced Behavior Effects on Perceived Mind, Morality, and Trust

Good Robots, Bad Robots: Morally Valenced Behavior Effects on Perceived Mind, Morality, and Trust

The morality of abusing a robot

Factors that influence robot acceptance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About