Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.19066/cogsci.2022.33.4.001

Is Mr. AI more responsible? The effect of anthropomorphism in the moral judgement toward AI's decision making  

Yoon-Bin, Choi (Interdisciplinary Program in Cognitive Science, Seoul National University)
Dayk, Jang (Gachon Startup College, Gachon University)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Cognitive Science / v.33, no.4, 2022 , pp. 169-203 More about this Journal
Abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) technology advances, the number of cases in which AI becomes an object or subject of moral judgment is increasing, and this trend is expected to accelerate. Although the area of AI in human society expands, relatively few studies have been conducted on how people perceive and respond to AI. Three studies examined the effect of the anthropomorphism of AI on its responsibility. We predicted that anthropomorphism would increase the responsibility perception, and perceived agency and perceived patiency for AI would mediate this effect. Although the manipulation was not effective, multiple analyses confirmed the indirect effect of perceived patiency. In contrast, the effect of perceived agency of AI was somewhat mixed, which makes the hypothesis partially supported by the overall result. This result shows that for the moral status of artificial agents, perceived patiency is relatively more critical than perceived agency. These results support the organic perspective on the moral status that argues the importance of patiency, and show that patiency is more important than agency in the anthropomorphism related study of AI and robots.
Keywords
artificial intelligence; anthropomorphism; moral responsibility; mind perception; moral dyad theory;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Oxford Dictionary. (n.d.). artificial intelligence. In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved October 28, 2021, from https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/271625
2 Otting, S. K., & Maier, G. W. (2018). The importance of procedural justice in human-machine interactions: Intelligent systems as new decision agents in organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 27-39.   DOI
3 Savage, M. (2019, March 19). Meet Tengai, the job interview robot who won't judge you. BBC News Online. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47442953
4 Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32-70.   DOI
5 Schein, C., Ritter, R. S., & Gray, K. (2016). Harm mediates the disgust-immorality link. Emotion, 16(6), 862.   DOI
6 Tollon, F. (2021). The artificial view: toward a non-anthropocentric account of moral patiency. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(2), 147-155.   DOI
7 Torrance, S. (2006). The ethical status of artificial agents-with and without consciousness. Ethics of human interaction with robotic, bionic and AI systems: concepts and policies. Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici, Napoli, 60-66.
8 Torrance, S. (2008). Ethics and consciousness in artificial agents. Ai & Society, 22(4), 495-521.   DOI
9 Verma, N., & Dombrowski, L. (2018, April). Confronting social criticisms: Challenges when adopting data-driven policing strategies. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-13).
10 Wang, W. (2017). Smartphones as social actors? Social dispositional factors in assessing anthropomorphism. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 334-344.   DOI
11 Wang, R., Harper, F. M., & Zhu, H. (2020, April). Factors influencing perceived fairness in algorithmic decision-making: Algorithm outcomes, development procedures, and individual differences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-14).
12 Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219-232.   DOI
13 Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113-117.   DOI
14 Wegner, D. M., & Gray, K. (2017). The mind club: Who thinks, what feels, and why it matters. Penguin.
15 Yam, K. C., Bigman, Y. E., Tang, P. M., Ilies, R., De Cremer, D., Soh, H., & Gray, K. (2020). Robots at work: People prefer-and forgive-service robots with perceived feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology.
16 Artificial intelligence: Go master Lee Se-dol wins against AlphaGo program (2016, March 13). BBC News Online. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35797102.
17 권헌영 (2019). 인공지능(AI)과 법조 분야: 윤리적․규제적 고려사항. 경제규제와 법, 12(2), 69-80.
18 Adler-Milstein, J., Holmgren, A. J., Kralovec, P., Worzala, C., Searcy, T., & Patel, V. (2017). Electronic health record adoption in US hospitals: the emergence of a digital "advanced use" divide. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 24(6), 1142-1148. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx080   DOI
19 Ajunwa, I., Friedler, S., Scheidegger, C. E., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2016). Hiring by algorithm: predicting and preventing disparate impact. Available at SSRN.
20 Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias. ProPublica, May 23, 2016.
21 Asaro, P. M. (2011). 11 A Body to Kick, but Still No Soul to Damn: Legal Perspectives on Robotics. Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics, 169.
22 Ayasdi (2018). Ayasdi for Payers: white paper. Ayasdi. https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.ayasdi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/05102657/WP-Ayasdi-for-Payers.pdf
23 Bigman, Y. E., & Gray, K. (2018). People are averse to machines making moral decisions. Cognition, 181, 21-34.   DOI
24 Cantarero, K., Szarota, P., Stamkou, E., Navas, M., & Dominguez Espinosa, A. D. C. (2021). The effects of culture and moral foundations on moral judgments: The ethics of authority mediates the relationship between power distance and attitude towards lying to one's supervisor. Current Psychology, 40(2), 675-683.
25 Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S., & Huq, A. (2017, August). Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In Proceedings of the 23rd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 797-806).
26 Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114.   DOI
27 Curry, O. S., Chesters, M. J., & Van Lissa, C. J. (2019). Mapping morality with a compass: Testing the theory of 'morality-as-cooperation'with a new questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 78, 106-124.   DOI
28 Dash, S., Shakyawar, S. K., Sharma, M., & Kaushik, S. (2019). Big data in healthcare: management, analysis and future prospects. Journal of Big Data, 6(1), 1-25.   DOI
29 Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 56-62.   DOI
30 Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological review, 114(4), 864.   DOI
31 Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford review, 5.
32 Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55-130). Academic Press.
33 Graham, J., Haidt, J., Motyl, M., Meindl, P., Iskiwitch, C., & Mooijman, M. (2018). Moral foundations theory: On the advantages of moral pluralism over moral monism. In K. Gray & J. Graham (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 211-222). The Guilford Press.
34 Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 96(5), 1029.   DOI
35 Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. science, 315(5812), 619-619.   DOI
36 Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105-2108.   DOI
37 Gray, K., Jenkins, A. C., Heberlein, A. S., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Distortions of mind perception in psychopathology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(2), 477-479.   DOI
38 Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2012). Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition, 125(1), 125-130.   DOI
39 Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2012). Morality takes two: Dyadic morality and mind perception.
40 Gunkel, D. J. (2012). The machine question: Critical perspectives on AI, robots, and ethics. mit Press.
41 Haidt, J., Koller, S. H., & Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), 613.   DOI
42 Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological review, 108(4), 814.   DOI
43 Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.
44 HLEG, A. I. (2019). High-level expert group on artificial intelligence: Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. European Commission, 09.04.
45 Hollister, B., & Bonham, V. L. (2018). Should electronic health record-derived social and behavioral data be used in precision medicine research?. AMA journal of ethics, 20(9), 873-880.
46 Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. Handbook of socialization theory and research, 347, 480.
47 Larsen, R. R. (2020). Psychopathy as moral blindness: a qualifying exploration of the blindness-analogy in psychopathy theory and research. Philosophical Explorations, 23(3), 214-233.   DOI
48 Kohlberg, L. (2016). 1. Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education. In C. Beck, B. Crittenden & E. Sullivan (Ed.), Moral Education (pp. 23-92). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442656758-004   DOI
49 Kuncel, N. R., Klieger, D. M., & Ones, D. S. (2014). In hiring, algorithms beat instinct. Harvard business review, 92(5), p32-32.
50 Laakasuo, M., Palomaki, J., & Kobis, N. (2021). Moral uncanny valley: a robot's appearance moderates  how its decisions are judged. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1-10.
51 Lee, D. (2016, March 25). Tay: Microsoft issues apology over racist chatbot fiasco. BBC News Online. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35902104
52 Li, M., & Suh, A. (2021, January). Machinelike or Humanlike? A Literature Review of Anthropomorphism in AI-Enabled Technology. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (p. 4053).
53 MacDorman, K. F. (2005, July). Androids as an experimental apparatus: Why is there an uncanny valley and can we exploit it. In CogSci-2005 workshop: toward social mechanisms of android science (Vol. 106118).
54 MacDorman, K. F., & Entezari, S. O. (2015). Individual differences predict sensitivity to the uncanny valley. Interaction Studies, 16(2), 141-172.   DOI
55 MacDorman, K. F., Green, R. D., Ho, C. C., & Koch, C. T. (2009). Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in human behavior, 25(3), 695-710.   DOI
56 Moosa, M. M., & Ud-Dean, S. M. (2010). Danger avoidance: An evolutionary explanation of uncanny valley. Biological Theory, 5(1), 12-14.   DOI
57 Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., Arnold, T., Voiklis, J., & Cusimano, C. (2015, March). Sacrifice one for the good of many? People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. In 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 117-124). IEEE.
58 Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., Forlizzi, J., & Voiklis, J. (2016, March). Which robot am I thinking about? The impact of action and appearance on people's evaluations of a moral robot. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 125-132). IEEE.
59 Min, J., Kim, S., Park, Y., & Sohn, Y. W. (2018). A Comparative Study of Potential Job Candidates' Perceptions of an AI Recruiter and a Human Recruiter. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 9(5), 191-202.   DOI
60 Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi no tani [the uncanny valley]. Energy, 7, 33-35.
61 Morse, S. J. (2008). Psychopathy and criminal responsibility. Neuroethics, 1(3), 205-212.   DOI
62 Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of social issues, 56(1), 81-103.
63 Natarajan, M., & Gombolay, M. (2020, March). Effects of anthropomorphism and accountability on trust in human robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 33-42).
64 Newborn, M. (2012). Kasparov versus Deep Blue: Computer chess comes of age. Springer Science & Business Media.
65 O'neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.