Which robot am I thinking about? The impact of action and appearance on people's evaluations of a moral robot
Abstract
In three studies we found further evidence for a previously discovered Human-Robot (HR) asymmetry in moral judgments: that people blame robots more for inaction than action in a moral dilemma but blame humans more for action than inaction in the identical dilemma (where inaction allows four persons to die and action sacrifices one to save the four). Importantly, we found that people's representation of the “robot” making these moral decisions appears to be one of a mechanical robot. For when we manipulated the pictorial display of a verbally described robot, people showed the HR asymmetry only when making judgments about a mechanical-looking robot, not a humanoid robot. This is the first demonstration that robot appearance affects people's moral judgments about robots.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
For robot failures, humans blame robots more for failures of inaction than for failures of action.
“However, Malle et al. have shown that for robot failures, there is an asymmetry of blame-that humans blame robots more for failures of inaction than of action [53,54].”
From Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies (2020) · cites this paper as [54]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 107
- Authors
- Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., Forlizzi, J., & Voiklis, J.
- Affiliations
- Brown University (US)
- Tufts University (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2016-03
- Pages
- 125-132
- OpenAlex
- W4235157082
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 13
- FWCI
- 12.93
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of Naval Research
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- moral judgment, robot appearance, humanoid robots, inaction, ethical dilemmas, blame attribution
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review