skip to main content
research-article

Human beings and robots: Are there any differences in the attribution of punishments for the same crimes?

Published: 26 April 2021 Publication History
First page of PDF

References

[1]
Alex Hern. 2017. Give robots ‘personhood’ status. The Guardian: EU committee argues. (Jan. 2017). Retrieved January 12, 2020 from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/12/give-robots-personhood-status-eu-committee-argues
[2]
Colin Allen, Gary Varner and Jason Zinser. 2000. Prolegomena to Any Future Artificial Moral Agent, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 12 (July 2000), 251–261.
[3]
Mark Coeckelbergh. 2016. Responsibility and the moral phenomenology of using self-driving cars. Appl. Artif. Intell, 3, 8 (Nov. 2016), 748–57.
[4]
Mark Coeckelbergh. 2009. Virtual moral agency, virtual moral responsibility: on the moral significance of the appearance, perception and performance of artificial agents. AI & Soc. 24 (May 2009), 181-189.
[5]
John-Stewart Gordon. 2020. Building moral Robots: Ethical pitfalls and challenges. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 26 (Feb. 2020), 141-157.
[6]
Sven Nyholm. 2018. Attributing agency to automated systems: Reflections to human-robot collaborations and responsibility-loci. Sci. Eng. Ethics 24 (Aug: 2018), 1201-1219.
[7]
Rose de Jong. 2019. The retribution-gap and responsibility-loci related to robots and automated technology: A reply to Nyholm. Sci Eng Ethics 26 (Jul. 2019), 727–735.
[8]
Luciano Floridi. 2016. Faultless responsibility: on the nature and allocation of moral responsibility for distributed moral actions. Philos. Trans. A. Math Phys. Eng. Sci. 374, 2083 (Dec. 2016), 20160112.
[9]
Wendy Liu. 2008. Focusing on desirability: the effect of decision interruption and suspension of preferences. J. Consum. Res. 35 (Dec. 2008), 640-652.
[10]
Daniel Kahneman. 2003. Perspective on judgment and choice. Am. Psychol. 58, 9 (Sept. 2003), 697–720.
[11]
Laura Zwaan, Sandra Monteiro, Jonathan Sherbino, Jonathan Ilgen, Betty Howey and Geoffrey Norman. 2017. Is bias in the eye of the beholder? A vignette study to assess recognition of cognitive biases in clinical case workups. BMJ Qual. Saf. 26, 2 (Feb. 2017), 104-110.
[12]
Stefano Guidi, Oronzo Parlangeli, Sandro Bettella and Sergio Roncato. 2011. Features of the selectivity for contrast polarity in contour integration revealed by a novel tilt illusion. Perception 40, 11 (Nov. 1), 1357-1375.
[13]
Oronzo Parlangeli and Sergio Roncato. 2010. Draughtsmen at work. Percept. 39, 2 (Feb. 2010). 255-259.
[14]
Jonathan S. B. T. Evans. 1989. Essays in cognitive psychology. Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences (1st. ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hove and London.
[15]
Daniel L. Ames and Susan T. Fiske. 2013. Intentional harms are worse, even when they're not. Psychol Sci 24, 9 (Sept. 2013), 1755–1762.
[16]
Daniel L. Ames and Susan T. Fiske. 2015. Perceived intent motivates people to magnify observed harms. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 11, 12 (March 2015), 3599-3605.
[17]
Mark D. Alicke. 1992. Culpable causation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63, 3 (Sept. 1992), 368–378.
[18]
Taemie Kim and Pamela Hinds. 2006. Who should I blame? Effects of autonomy and transparency on attribution in human-robots interaction. In Proceedings of The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2006), Hatfiled, UK, 80-85.
[19]
Joo-Wha Hong and Dimitri Williams. 2019. Racism, responsibility and autonomy in HCI: Testing perceptions of an AI agent. Comput. Hum. Behav. 100 (June 2019), 79-84.
[20]
Richard D. Johnson, Natasha F. Veltri and Steven Hornik. 2008. Attributions of Responsibility Toward Computing Technology: The Role of Interface Social Cues and User Gender. Int. J. Hum-Comput. Int. 24, 6 (July 2008), 595-612.
[21]
Daniel B. Shank and Alyssa DeSanti. 2018. Attributions of morality and mind to artificial intelligence after real-world moral violations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 86 (Sept. 2018), 401-411.
[22]
David Premack and Guy Woodruff. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1, 4 (Dec. 1978) 515–526.
[23]
Daniel C. Dennett. 1987. The intentional stance. MIT press, Cambridge, Ma.
[24]
Nicolas Epley, Adam Waytz and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114, 4 (Nov. 2007), 864-886.
[25]
Deborah Kelemen and Susan Carey. 2007. The essence of artifacts: Developing the design stance, in S. Lawrence and E. Margolis (Eds.), Creations of the Mind: Artifacts and their representation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, (2007).
[26]
Kazunori Terada, Takashi Shamoto, Haying Mei and Akira Ito. 2007. Reactive Movements of non-humanoid robots cause intention attribution in humans. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IEEE/RSJ 2007), October 29 - November 2, 2007, San Diego, CA, USA, 3715-3720.
[27]
Oronzo Parlangeli, Tommaso Chiantini and Stefano Guidi. 2012. A Mind in a disk: The attribution of mental state to technological systems. Work 41 (2012), 1118-1123.
[28]
Oronzo Parlangeli, Stefano Guidi and Fiore R. Farina. 2012. Overloading Disks onto a Mind: Quantity Effects in the Attribution of Mental States to Technological Systems. Proceedings of the 18th international Congress, IEA – International Ergonomics Association, Recife (2012).
[29]
Oronzo Parlangeli, Maria C. Caratozzolo and Stefano Guidi. 2014. Multitasking and Mentalizing Machines: How the Workload Can Have Influence on the System Comprehension. In D. Harris (ed.) Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. 11th International Conference, EPCE 2014, Held as Part of HCI International 2014, Heraklion, Crete, Greece (2014).
[30]
Kurt Grey, Liane Young and Adam Waytz. 2012. Mind Perception Is the Essence of Morality. Psychological Inquiry. 23, 101-124.
[31]
Hideyuki Takahashi, Kazunori Terada, Tomoyo Morita, Shinsuke Suzuki, Tomoki Haji, Hideki Kozima 2014. Different impressions of other agents obtained through social interaction uniquely modulate dorsal and ventral pathway activities in the social human brain. Cortex, 58 (Sept. 2014), 289–300.
[32]
Evgeniya Hristova and Maurice Grinberg. 2015. Should Robots Kill? Moral Judgments for Actions of Artificial Cognitive Agents. In Proceedings of EuroAsianPacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science (EAPCogSci 2015). CEUR-WS.org., 306-311.
[33]
Bertram F. Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Thomas Arnold, John Voiklis and Corey Cusimano. 2015. Sacrifice one for the good of many?: People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM Press, 117–124.
[34]
Tetsushi Tanibe, Takaaki Hashimoto and Kaoni Karasawa. 2017. We perceive a mind in a robot when we help it. PLoS ONE 12, 7 (July 2017), 12 pages.
[35]
Heather Grey and Kurt Grey. 2007. Dimensions of Mind Perception. Science. 315, 619 (Feb. 2007).
[36]
Carlo Chiorri, Carlo Garofalo and Patrizia Velotti. 2019. Does the Dark Triad manifest Similarly in men and women? Measurement invariance of the Dirty Dozen across sex. Current Psychology, 38, 659-675 (July 2019).
[37]
Peter K. Jonason, and Gregory D. Webster. 2010. The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment 22(2), 420-432 (June 2010).

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)The robot saw it coming: physical human interference, deservingness, and self-efficacy in service robot failuresBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2024.2351195(1-20)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
  1. Human beings and robots: Are there any differences in the attribution of punishments for the same crimes?

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ECCE '21: Proceedings of the 32nd European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics
      April 2021
      235 pages
      ISBN:9781450387576
      DOI:10.1145/3452853
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 26 April 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. Moral judgments
      2. artificial agents
      3. mind perception
      4. robots

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Conference

      ECCE 2021

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 56 of 91 submissions, 62%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)89
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
      Reflects downloads up to 22 Oct 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)The robot saw it coming: physical human interference, deservingness, and self-efficacy in service robot failuresBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2024.2351195(1-20)Online publication date: 6-May-2024

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format.

      HTML Format

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media