Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 67 references

The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of One

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Two preregistered experiments show that one AI agent's immoral action worsens moral judgments of AIs as a whole, while one human's same action does not taint humans in general.

desk verdict A well-run preregistered study of moral spillover to AI whose 'double standard' claim rides on one underpowered null and an untested mechanism—worth reviewing, but the framing needs restraint. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06040 v1 pith:MK2C5TYX submitted 2024-12-08 cs.AI cs.CYcs.ETcs.HC

Aikaterina Manoli , Janet V. T. Pauketat , Jacy Reese Anthis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CYcs.ETcs.HC
keywords moralspilloverhuman-AIinteractionagencypatiencyAIdoublestandardjudgmentalgorithmictransferenceoutgrouphomogeneity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that moral judgments do not stay with the individual AI that misbehaves: they spill over to other AIs, including AIs in general, whereas a human's misdeed only taints a close group such as fellow assistants and not humanity as a whole. The authors ran two preregistered vignette experiments with U.S. online participants, measuring attributions of negative moral agency, positive moral agency, and moral patiency to an agent and to its group. Study 1 found spillover for both a chatbot assistant and a human personal assistant to their own assistant groups. Study 2, with a named agent and broader groups, found spillover to all AIs but not to all humans, which the authors interpret as a moral double standard.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is moral spillover: the transfer of moral attributions from a single agent to a group. It is operationalized through composite scales measuring negative moral agency, positive moral agency, and moral patiency, with the latter defined as the degree to which an entity deserves moral concern. The experimental design varies similarity between agent and group: in Study 1 the group is same-occupation assistants, while in Study 2 the agent is given a name and the groups are widened to all AIs or all humans. The asymmetry between conditions is explained through the perceived homogeneity of AIs as an outgroup, although the paper states that this perception was not directly assessed.

What would settle it

Conduct a preregistered replication of Study 2 with a final sample large enough to reliably detect the planned small effect (about 787 participants); if an immoral human agent measurably lowers moral attributions to humans in general while the AI effect remains, the double standard claim is undermined, and directly measuring perceived homogeneity of AIs versus humans and finding no mediation would undercut the proposed mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that an AI agent's immoral action increases attribution of negative moral agency and decreases attribution of positive moral agency and moral patiency not only to the agent itself but also to the group it belongs to, and this generalization reaches "AIs in general" even when the agent is individuated with a name. For humans, the same extension occurs to a narrow group (human personal assistants) but not to humans in general. The authors interpret this asymmetry as an AI double standard: humans treat AIs as a relatively homogeneous outgroup, so one bad AI lowers the moral standing of all AIs, while humans are seen as too diverse for one person's actions to define everyone. They note that this mechanism was not directly measured.

Load-bearing premise

The double standard rests on the null result in Study 2, where one human's immoral act did not lower moral ratings of humans in general; if that null reflects the study's smaller-than-planned sample rather than a true absence of spillover, the asymmetry could disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One AI's moral failure can lower perceived moral standing and trust in unrelated AI systems, including responsibly deployed ones.
  • Designers and organizations face a heightened duty to prevent any single AI's harmful action, because the reputational damage generalizes beyond the individual system.
  • Moral patiency spillover means a bad act by one AI can also reduce people's willingness to care about the welfare of other AIs.
  • If the asymmetry holds in real settings, AI systems may suffer reputationally in ways that human workers in the same role would not.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the double standard predicts a measurable real-world asymmetry in public opinion after a widely reported AI transgression, with trust in unrelated AI products dropping more than trust in a profession after a comparable human transgression.
  • Beyond the paper: if perceived AI homogeneity is the driver, then making AIs more individually distinct should weaken spillover; Study 2's named agent still produced spillover, so this extension is uncertain and directly testable.
  • Beyond the paper: because the studies use written vignettes, behavioral consequences such as refusing to use AI tools after one AI misbehaves remain untested and could be examined in a field or incentive-compatible experiment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports two preregistered online vignette experiments (Study 1 N=727, Study 2 N=684, Prolific US samples) testing whether an agent's immoral action spills over to moral attributions about the agent's group. Participants rated negative moral agency, positive moral agency, and moral patiency for the agent and for the group (chatbot/human assistants in Study 1; 'AIs in general'/'humans in general' in Study 2). Study 1 found spillover to both congruent groups with no asymmetry between AI and human contexts. Study 2, which individuated the agent as 'Ezal' and broadened the target groups, found spillover to AIs in general but not to humans in general, with significant agent-type x valence interactions on all three dependent variables, interpreted as an 'AI double standard.' The paper also reports agent-level effects that reverse across studies (AI judged more harshly than human in Study 1, less harshly in Study 2).

Significance. Demonstrating moral spillover in human-AI interaction and showing that a single AI's immorality can shift moral attributions to all AIs would be a valuable contribution to HCI and moral psychology, with direct implications for AI accountability and trust. The studies are methodologically careful: preregistration on AsPredicted, large samples, transparent ANOVA tables and effect sizes, scale validation against the Banks (2019) moral agency scale, and OSF availability of materials, data, and code. The paper's central asymmetry claim, however, rests on a null result in one condition of Study 2 and on an unmeasured mechanism, so the headline 'double standard' is stronger than the current evidence supports.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2.5, Table 4] The double-standard conclusion rests on the null effect in the human condition of Study 2: negative moral agency for humans in general did not shift (immoral M=4.15, neutral M=4.05, p=.99), and the same pattern held for positive moral agency (p=.87) and moral patiency (p=.47). Because H3 is supported only by this failure to reject, and the final sample of 684 provides about 75% power for the planned small effect (vs. the preregistered 787 for 80%; §3.2.1), the human null may reflect lower power rather than a true absence of spillover. The authors should report a sensitivity analysis, Bayesian equivalence bounds or confidence intervals for the human contrasts, and preferably a higher-powered replication before claiming a double standard.
  2. [§3.2.2, §4.2.2] The human agent in Study 2 is individuated with the name 'Ezal,' selected in a pilot for middling human-likeness between 'Jordan' and 'XZ103.' For a human, an atypical name may mark the exemplar as unrepresentative of 'humans in general,' reducing the prior that one person's immorality reveals anything about humanity; the same logic does not apply to an AI, whose name is not socially coded. The authors list individuation as one of three changes reducing human agent-group similarity (§4.2.2) but never test whether the specific name is responsible for the human null. A condition using a common human name, or a manipulation check of perceived typicality of 'Ezal' as a human exemplar, is needed to rule out this confound.
  3. [§5, §4.2.1] The proposed mechanism for the asymmetry—perceived outgroup homogeneity of AIs—is never measured. Section 5 explicitly states that mechanisms were not tested, and Section 4.2.1 relies on speculation plus Longoni et al. [43] for the homogeneity explanation. Without a direct measure of perceived variability of AIs versus humans, or a mediation test, the 'double standard' is an interpretive label for the interaction rather than a demonstrated process. The authors should either add such a measure or soften the mechanistic claims.
  4. [§4.2.2] Study 2 changes three features simultaneously relative to Study 1 (individuating name, broadened groups from assistants to all AIs/humans, and having participants rate both groups). These factors are confounded, so the absence of human spillover in Study 2 cannot be attributed to the human-AI distinction per se; it could be produced by the broader 'humans in general' category, the name, or the simultaneous group comparison. The authors discuss these as methodological differences but do not disentangle them. An additional experiment or analysis varying these factors independently is required to support the claim that the asymmetry is about AI versus human moral standing rather than about Study-2-specific procedures.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1.4] In the Study 1 group's positive moral agency spillover results, the chatbot immoral mean is reported as M=4.08, SE=0.01; the SE is implausibly smaller than the other SEs in the same table and is likely a typo.
  2. [§3.2.4] The moral patiency results for the Study 2 agent refer to 'more for the human than the chatbot agent,' but Study 2 used an AI agent rather than a chatbot; the wording should be 'AI agent.'
  3. [§3.2.4] The moral patiency results for the agent say '(Table 3 and Figure 5a)'; moral patiency is shown in Figure 5c, not Figure 5a.
  4. [Table 4] The p-value for the agent-type main effect on negative moral agency is printed as '.001*' rather than '<.001*', inconsistent with the other tables.
  5. [Figure 1 caption] 'Contrarily' is informal; use 'In contrast'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's central claim is an empirical, preregistered experimental result, not an algebraic or definitional consequence of its inputs.

full rationale

This is an empirical psychology paper with no derivation chain, fitted parameters, or equations that could reduce to its inputs. The central 'AI double standard' claim is a statistical interaction contrast in Study 2, comparing spillover to 'AIs in general' versus 'humans in general'; the outcome measures are directly rated by participants on published scales, not constructed from the hypothesis being tested. The moral agency scales are based on Moral Foundations Theory and are validated against an external scale (Banks, 2019), and the moral patiency scale is a published instrument (Pauketat et al., 2022). Although that latter scale is self-authored, it is a measurement tool with stated items and is not fitted to the present studies' target result, so it does not constitute load-bearing self-citation. The paper also acknowledges that the proposed homogeneity mechanism was not directly measured, and the choice of the name 'Ezal' in Study 2 is a stimulus property that could affect generalizability; these are correctness or confound concerns, not circularity. No step in the paper's argument assumes what it claims to establish, and no prediction is defined in terms of its own outcome. The stated limitations about untested mechanisms and reduced power in Study 2 further confirm that the authors do not present the results as forced by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities exist because this is an empirical behavioral study. The central claim rests on scale validity, vignette realism, and sample generalizability, all standard domain assumptions for this kind of research.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The vignette scenario validly operationalizes immorality versus neutrality: downloading malicious software to disrupt coworkers is immoral; following standard procedure is morally neutral.
    Section 3.1.2 materials describe the manipulations. All hypothesis tests depend on this contrast being understood as intended.
  • domain assumption The composite moral agency and moral patiency scales measure the intended constructs for both AI and human targets.
    Section 3.1.2 reports internal consistency and correlations with Banks (2019), but construct validity for group-level comparisons is assumed.
  • domain assumption U.S. Prolific samples generalize to broader populations for human-AI moral judgments.
    Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 describe convenience samples; the paper treats them as representative for the purpose of the claims.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of One." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MK2C5TYX

@misc{pith2026241206040,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of One},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MK2C5TYX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06040}
}
read the original abstract

Robots and other artificial intelligence (AI) systems are widely perceived as moral agents responsible for their actions. As AI proliferates, these perceptions may become entangled via the moral spillover of attitudes towards one AI to attitudes towards other AIs. We tested how the seemingly harmful and immoral actions of an AI or human agent spill over to attitudes towards other AIs or humans in two preregistered experiments. In Study 1 (N = 720), we established the moral spillover effect in human-AI interaction by showing that immoral actions increased attributions of negative moral agency (i.e., acting immorally) and decreased attributions of positive moral agency (i.e., acting morally) and moral patiency (i.e., deserving moral concern) to both the agent (a chatbot or human assistant) and the group to which they belong (all chatbot or human assistants). There was no significant difference in the spillover effects between the AI and human contexts. In Study 2 (N = 684), we tested whether spillover persisted when the agent was individuated with a name and described as an AI or human, rather than specifically as a chatbot or personal assistant. We found that spillover persisted in the AI context but not in the human context, possibly because AIs were perceived as more homogeneous due to their outgroup status relative to humans. This asymmetry suggests a double standard whereby AIs are judged more harshly than humans when one agent morally transgresses. With the proliferation of diverse, autonomous AI systems, HCI research and design should account for the fact that experiences with one AI could easily generalize to perceptions of all AIs and negative HCI outcomes, such as reduced trust.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06040 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Summary of results. Across two studies, we found that attribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart of Study 1 and Study 2 procedure. In Study 1, participants were [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of agent type and action valence on the agent’s moral attributions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of agent type and action valence on the moral attributions to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of agent type and action valence on the agent’s moral attributions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of agent type and action valence on the moral attributions to AIs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [43]

    Chiara Longoni, Luca Cian, and Ellie J. Kyung. 2023. Algorithmic Transference: People Overgeneralize Failures of AI in the Government. Journal of Marketing Research 60, 1 (Feb. 2023), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437221110139

    doi:10.1177/00222437221110139 2023

  2. [1]

    Automation Bias

    Saar Alon-Barkat and Madalina Busuioc. 2023. Human–AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision Making: “Automation Bias” and “Selective Adherence” to Algorithmic Advice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 33, 1 (Jan. 2023), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac007

    doi:10.1093/jopart/muac007 2023

  3. [2]

    I Don’t Want To Shoot The Android

    Karina Arrambide, John Yoon, Cayley MacArthur, Katja Rogers, Alessandra Luz, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2022. “I Don’t Want To Shoot The Android”: Players Translate Real-Life Moral Intuitions to In-Game Decisions in Detroit: Become Human. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502019

    arXiv 2022

  4. [3]

    Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. The Moral Machine Experiment. Nature 563, 7729 (Nov. 2018), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-018-0637-6

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Jaime Banks. 2019. A Perceived Moral Agency Scale: Development and Validation of a Metric for Humans and Social Machines. Computers in Human Behavior 90 (Jan. 2019), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.028 2019

  6. [5]

    Jaime Banks. 2021. From Warranty Voids to Uprising Advocacy: Human Action and the Perceived Moral Patiency of Social Robots. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 (May 2021), 670503. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.670503

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Jaime Banks. 2021. Good Robots, Bad Robots: Morally Valenced Behavior Effects on Perceived Mind, Morality, and Trust. International Journal of Social Robotics 13, 8 (Dec. 2021), 2021–2038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00692-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-020-00692-3 2021

  8. [7]

    Yoav Benjamini and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 57, 1 (1995), 289–300. https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

    arXiv 1995

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    Nicolas Berberich, Toyoaki Nishida, and Shoko Suzuki. 2020. Harmonizing Artificial Intelligence for Social Good. https://philpapers.org/rec/BERHAI-9

    2020

  2. [9]

    Bigman, Desman Wilson, Mads N

    Yochanan E. Bigman, Desman Wilson, Mads N. Arnestad, Adam Waytz, and Kurt Gray. 2023. Algorithmic Discrimination Causes Less Moral Outrage than Human Discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 152, 1 (Jan. 2023), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001250

    2023 doi

  3. [10]

    Jessica Boin, Mirjana Rupar, Sylvie Graf, Sybille Neji, Olivia Spiegler, and Hermann Swart. 2021. The Generalization of Intergroup Contact Effects: Emerging Research, Policy Relevance, and Future Directions. Journal of Social Issues 77, 1 (2021), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2021 doi

  4. [11]

    Victoria Buchholz, Philipp Kulms, and Stefan Kopp. 2017. It’s (Not) Your Fault! Blame and Trust Repair in Human-Agent Cooperation. Kognitive Systeme 2017, 1 (Sept. 2017). https://doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/44538

    2017 doi

  5. [12]

    José-Antonio Cervantes, Sonia López, Luis-Felipe Rodríguez, Salvador Cervantes, Francisco Cervantes, and Félix Ramos. 2020. Artificial Moral Agents: A Survey of the Current Status. Science and Engineering Ethics 26, 2 (April 2020), 501–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00151-x

    2020 doi

  6. [13]

    Nadia Chernyak and Heather E. Gary. 2016. Children’s Cognitive and Behavioral Reactions to an Autonomous versus Controlled Social Robot Dog. Early Education and Development 27, 8 (2016), 1175–1189. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10409289.2016.1158611

    2016

  7. [14]

    Desforges, Charles G

    Donna M. Desforges, Charles G. Lord, Shawna L. Ramsey, Julie A. Mason, Marilyn D. Van Leeuwen, Sylvia C. West, and Mark R. Lepper. 1991. Effects of Structured Cooperative Contact on Changing Negative Attitudes toward Stigmatized Social Groups. Journal of Personality and Social...

    1991 doi

  8. [15]

    Dietvorst, Joseph P

    Berkeley J. Dietvorst, Joseph P. Simmons, and Cade Massey. 2015. Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms after Seeing Them Err. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 144, 1 (Feb. 2015), 114–126. https: Forthcoming in Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Comput...

    2015 doi

  9. [16]

    Hyo Jin Do, Ha-Kyung Kong, Pooja Tetali, Jaewook Lee, and Brian P. Bailey. 2023. To Err Is AI: Imperfect Interventions and Repair in a Conversational Agent Facilitating Group Chat Discussions.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 99:1–99:2...

    2023 doi

  10. [17]

    Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Albert-Georg Lang, and Axel Buchner. 2007. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39, 2 (2007), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 Place: US P...

    2007 doi

  11. [18]

    Julia Fink. 2012. Anthropomorphism and Human Likeness in the Design of Robots and Human-Robot Interaction. In Social Robotics (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) , Shuzhi Sam Ge, Oussama Khatib, John-John Cabibihan, Reid Simmons, and Mary-Anne Williams (Eds.). Springer, Berlin...

    2012 doi

  12. [19]

    Matija Franklin, Edmond Awad, and David Lagnado. 2021. Blaming Automated Vehicles in Difficult Situations.iScience 24, 4 (April 2021), 102252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102252

    2021

  13. [20]

    Nathan G. Freier. 2008. Children Attribute Moral Standing to a Personified Agent. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’08) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357113

    2008

  14. [21]

    Nosek, Jonathan Haidt, Ravi Iyer, Spassena Koleva, and Peter H

    Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, Jonathan Haidt, Ravi Iyer, Spassena Koleva, and Peter H. Ditto. 2011. Mapping the Moral Domain. Journal of personality and social psychology 101, 2 (Aug. 2011), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847

    2011 doi

  15. [22]

    Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner. 2009. Moral Typecasting: Divergent Perceptions of Moral Agents and Moral Patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96, 3 (2009), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013748

    2009 doi

  16. [23]

    Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner. 2012. Morality Takes Two: Dyadic Morality and Mind Perception. In The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil . American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, 109–127

    2012

  17. [24]

    Jamie Harris and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2021. The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 27, 4 (2021), 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00331-8

    2021 doi

  18. [25]

    Joshua James Hatherley. 2020. Limits of Trust in Medical AI. Journal of Medical Ethics 46, 7 (July 2020), 478–481. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105935

    2020 doi

  19. [26]

    Hochheimer, Roy T

    Camille J. Hochheimer, Roy T. Sabo, Alex H. Krist, Teresa Day, John Cyrus, and Steven H. Woolf. 2016. Methods for Evaluating Respondent Attrition in Web-Based Surveys. Journal of Medical Internet Research 18, 11 (Nov. 2016), e301. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6342

    2016 doi

  20. [27]

    Joo-Wha Hong, Yunwen Wang, and Paulina Lanz. 2020. Why Is Artificial Intelligence Blamed More? Analysis of Faulting Artificial Intelligence for Self-Driving Car Accidents in Experimental Settings. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 36, 18 (Nov. 2020), 1768–177...

    2020

  21. [28]

    Ravi Iyer, Spassena Koleva, Jesse Graham, Peter Ditto, and Jonathan Haidt. 2012. Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians. PLoS ONE 7, 8 (Aug. 2012), e42366. https://doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0042366

    2012

  22. [29]

    Kahn, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Brian T

    Peter H. Kahn, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Brian T. Gill, Jolina H. Ruckert, Solace Shen, Heather E. Gary, Aimee L. Reichert, Nathan G. Freier, and Rachel L. Severson. 2012. Do People Hold a Humanoid Robot Morally Accountable for the Harm It Causes?. In 2012 7th ACM/IEEE...

    2012

  23. [30]

    Hyun Kang. 2021. Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions 18 (July 2021). https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.17 Publisher: Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute

    2021 doi

  24. [31]

    Rafal Kocielnik, Saleema Amershi, and Paul N. Bennett. 2019. Will You Accept an Imperfect AI? Exploring Designs for Adjusting End-user Expectations of AI Systems. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19) . Association for Comput...

    2019

  25. [32]

    Malle, and Matthias Scheutz

    Takanori Komatsu, Bertram F. Malle, and Matthias Scheutz. 2021. Blaming the Reluctant Robot: Parallel Blame Judgments for Robots in Moral Dilemmas across U.S. and Japan. In 2021 16th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 63–72

    2021

  26. [33]

    Ali Ladak, Jamie Harris, and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2023. Features of Moral Consideration for Artificial Entities: A Conjoint Experiment. (Jan. 2023). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/235vp

    2023 doi

  27. [34]

    Ali Ladak, Matti Wilks, and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2023. Extending Perspective Taking to Nonhuman Animals and Artificial Entities. Social Cognition 41, 3 (June 2023), 274–302. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2023.41.3.274

    2023 doi

  28. [35]

    Linnea Laestadius, Andrea Bishop, Michael Gonzalez, Diana Illenčík, and Celeste Campos-Castillo. 2022. Too Human and Not Human Enough: A Grounded Theory Analysis of Mental Health Harms from Emotional Dependence on the Social Chatbot Replika. New Media & Society (Dec. 2022), 14...

    2022 doi

  29. [36]

    Minha Lee, Sander Ackermans, Nena van As, Hanwen Chang, Enzo Lucas, and Wijnand IJsselsteijn. 2019. Caring for Vincent: A Chatbot for Self-Compassion. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19) . Association for Computing Machiner...

    2019 doi

  30. [37]

    Xuying Leo and Young Eun Huh. 2020. Who Gets the Blame for Service Failures? Attribution of Responsibility toward Robot versus Human Service Providers and Service Firms. Computers in Human Behavior 113 (Dec. 2020), 106520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106520

    2020

  31. [38]

    Gabriel Lima, Nina Grgić-Hlača, and Meeyoung Cha. 2023. Blaming Humans and Machines: What Shapes People’s Reactions to Algorithmic Harm. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/354454...

    2023

  32. [39]

    Gabriel Lima, Changyeon Kim, Seungho Ryu, Chihyung Jeon, and Meeyoung Cha. 2020. Collecting the Public Perception of AI and Robot Rights. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 135:1–135:24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415206

    2020 doi

  33. [40]

    Linville and Gregory W

    Patricia W. Linville and Gregory W. Fischer. 1997. Group Variability and Covariation: Effects on Intergroup Judgment and Behavior. In Intergroup Cognition and Intergroup Behavior . Psychology Press. Num Pages: 28

    1997

  34. [41]

    Peng Liu, Manqing Du, and Tingting Li. 2021. Psychological Consequences of Legal Responsibility Misattribution Associated with Automated Vehicles. Ethics and Information Technology 23, 4 (Dec. 2021), 763–776. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10676-021-09613-y

    2021

  35. [42]

    Peng Liu, Yong Du, and Zhigang Xu. 2019. Machines versus Humans: People’s Biased Responses to Traffic Accidents Involving Self-Driving Vehicles. Accident Analysis & Prevention 125 (April 2019), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. aap.2019.02.012

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    Chiara Longoni, Andrey Fradkin, Luca Cian, and Gordon Pennycook. 2022. News from Generative Artificial Intelligence Is Believed Less. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’22) . Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    2022

  37. [45]

    Jeremy Lopez, Claire Textor, Caitlin Lancaster, Beau Schelble, Guo Freeman, Rui Zhang, Nathan McNeese, and Richard Pak. 2023. The complex relationship of AI ethics and trust in human–AI teaming: insights from advanced real-world subject matter experts. AI and Ethics (July 2023...

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Elizabeth Mullen and Janice Nadler. 2008. Moral Spillovers: The Effect of Moral Violations on Deviant Behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44, 5 (Sept. 2008), 1239–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.001

    2008 doi

  39. [47]

    Ostrom and Constantine Sedikides

    Thomas M. Ostrom and Constantine Sedikides. 1992. Out-group homogeneity effects in natural and minimal groups. Psychological Bulletin 112, 3 (1992), 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.536 Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association

    1992 doi

  40. [48]

    Janet V. T. Pauketat and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2022. Predicting the Moral Consideration of Artificial Intelligences. Computers in Human Behavior 136 (Nov. 2022), 107372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107372

    2022

  41. [49]

    Janet V. T. Pauketat, Ali Ladak, and Jacy R Anthis. 2022. Artificial Intelligence, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) Survey:

    2022

  42. [50]

    Rebitschek, Gerd Gigerenzer, and Gert G

    Felix G. Rebitschek, Gerd Gigerenzer, and Gert G. Wagner. 2021. People Underestimate the Errors Made by Algorithms for Credit Scoring and Recidivism Prediction but Accept Even Fewer Errors. Scientific Reports 11, 1 (Oct. 2021), 20171. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99802-y

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    Yuhosua Ryoo, Yongwoog Andy Jeon, and WooJin Kim. 2024. The Blame Shift: Robot Service Failures Hold Service Firms More Accountable. Journal of Business Research 171 (Jan. 2024), 114360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114360

    2024

  44. [52]

    Erik Santoro and Benoît Monin. 2023. The AI effect: People rate distinctively human attributes as more essential to being human after learning about artificial intelligence advances. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 107 (2023), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.202...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Schelble, Christopher Flathmann, Nathan J

    Beau G. Schelble, Christopher Flathmann, Nathan J. McNeese, Guo Freeman, and Rohit Mallick. 2022. Let’s Think Together! Assessing Shared Mental Models, Performance, and Trust in Human-Agent Teams. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, GROUP (Jan. 2022), 13:1–...

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    Sarah Sebo, Brett Stoll, Brian Scassellati, and Malte F. Jung. 2020. Robots in Groups and Teams: A Literature Review. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 176:1–176:36. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3415247

    2020

  47. [55]

    Constantine Sedikides and Thomas M. Ostrom. 1993. Perceptions of Group Variability: Moving from an Uncertain Crawl to a Purposeful Stride. Social Cognition 11, 1 (March 1993), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1993.11.1.165 Publisher: Guilford Publications Inc

    1993 doi

  48. [56]

    Anna-Maria Seeger, Jella Pfeiffer, and Armin Heinzl. 2021. Texting with Humanlike Conversational Agents: Designing for Anthropomorphism. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 22, 4 (Jan. 2021). https://doi.org/10.17705/ Forthcoming in Proceedings of the ACM on Hum...

    2021

  49. [57]

    Shank, Alyssa DeSanti, and Timothy Maninger

    Daniel B. Shank, Alyssa DeSanti, and Timothy Maninger. 2019. When are artificial intelligence versus human agents faulted for wrongdoing? Moral attributions after individual and joint decisions. Information, Communication & Society 22, 5 (2019), 648–663. https://doi.org/10.108...

    2019

  50. [58]

    Stuart and Markus Kneer

    Michael T. Stuart and Markus Kneer. 2021. Guilty Artificial Minds: Folk Attributions of Mens Rea and Culpability to Artificially Intelligent Agents. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 363:1–363:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479507

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    Suzanne Tolmeijer, Markus Christen, Serhiy Kandul, Markus Kneer, and Abraham Bernstein. 2022. Capable but Amoral? Comparing AI and Human Expert Collaboration in Ethical Decision Making. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22) ....

    2022

  52. [60]

    Pizarro, and Paul Bloom

    Eric Luis Uhlmann, Luke Lei Zhu, David A. Pizarro, and Paul Bloom. 2012. Blood Is Thicker: Moral Spillover Effects Based on Kinship. Cognition 124, 2 (Aug. 2012), 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.010

    2012 doi

  53. [61]

    Bingcheng Wang, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau, and Tianyi Yuan. 2023. Measuring User Competence in Using Artificial Intelligence: Validity and Reliability of Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale. Behaviour & Information Technology 42, 9 (July 2023), 1324–1337. https://doi.org/10.1080...

    2023

  54. [62]

    Adam Waytz, John Cacioppo, and Nicholas Epley. 2014. Who Sees Human? The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism. Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science 5, 3 (May 2014), 219–232. https://doi...

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    Blay Whitby. 2008. Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Robot: A Call for Action on the Ethics of Abusing Artificial Agents. Interacting with Computers 20, 3 (May 2008), 326–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.02.002

    2008 doi

  56. [64]

    Hongbo Yu, Jie Chen, Bernadette Dardaine, and Fan Yang. 2023. Moral Barrier to Compassion: How Perceived Badness of Sufferers Dampens Observers’ Compassionate Responses. Cognition 237 (Aug. 2023), 105476. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105476

    2023

  57. [65]

    McNeese, Bart Knijnenburg, and Wen Duan

    Rui Zhang, Christopher Flathmann, Geoff Musick, Beau Schelble, Nathan J. McNeese, Bart Knijnenburg, and Wen Duan. 2024. I Know This Looks Bad, But I Can Explain: Understanding When AI Should Explain Actions In Human-AI Teams. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems...

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    Sorry, it was my fault

    Xinyi Zhang, Sun Kyong Lee, Whani Kim, and Sowon Hahn. 2023. “Sorry, it was my fault”: Repairing trust in human- robot interactions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 175 (July 2023), 103031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhcs.2023.103031 Forthcoming in Proceedings...

    2023

  59. [2021]

    https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dzgsb

    PsyArXiv (Jun 2022). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dzgsb

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.