Search for: All records

Because robots are perceived as moral agents, they must behave in accordance with human systems of morality. This responsibility is especially acute for language-capable robots because moral communication is a method for building moral ecosystems. Language capable robots must not only make sure that what they say adheres to moral norms; they must also actively engage in moral communication to regulate and encourage human compliance with those norms. In this work, we describe four experiments (total N =316) across which we systematically evaluate two different moral communication strategies that robots could use to influence human behavior: a norm-based strategy grounded in deontological ethics, and a role-based strategy grounded in role ethics. Specifically, we assess the effectiveness of robots that use these two strategies to encourage human compliance with norms grounded in expectations of behavior associated with certain social roles. Our results suggest two major findings, demonstrating the importance of moral reflection and moral practice for effective moral communication: First, opportunities for reflection on ethical principles may increase the efficacy of robots’ role-based moral language; and second, following robots’ moral language with opportunities for moral practice may facilitate role-based moral cultivation. 

To enable robots to exert positive moral influence, we need to understand the impacts of robots’ moral communications, the ways robots can phrase their moral language to be most clear and persuasive, and the ways that these factors interact. Previous work has suggested, for example, that for certain types of robot moral interventions to be successful (i.e., moral interventions grounded in particular ethical frameworks), those interventions may need to be followed by opportunities for moral reflection, during which humans can critically engage with not only the contents of the robot’s moral language, but also with the way that moral language connects with their social-relational ontology and broader moral ecosystem. We conceptually replicate this prior work (N=119) using a design that more precisely manipulates moral ref lection. Our results confirm that opportunities for moral reflection are indeed critical to the success of robotic moral interventions—regardless of the ethical framework in which those interventions are grounded. 

To enable robots to exert positive moral influence, we need to understand the impacts of robots’ moral communications, the ways robots can phrase their moral language to be most clear and persuasive, and the ways that these factors interact. Previous work has suggested, for example, that for certain types of robot moral interventions to be successful (i.e., moral interventions grounded in particular ethical frameworks), those interventions may need to be followed by opportunities for moral reflection, during which humans can critically engage with not only the contents of the robot’s moral language, but also with the way that moral language connects with their social-relational ontology and broader moral ecosystem. We conceptually replicate this prior work (N =119) using a design that more precisely manipulates moral reflection. Our results confirm that opportunities for moral reflection are indeed critical to the success of robotic moral interventions—regardless of the ethical framework in which those interventions are grounded. 

Microaggressions are subtle, offensive comments that are directed at minority group members and are characteristically ambiguous in meaning. In two studies, we explored how observers interpreted such ambiguous statements by comparing microaggressions to faux pas, offenses caused by the speaker having an incidental false belief. In Experiment 1, we compared third-party observers’ blame and intentionality judgments of microaggressions with those for social faux pas. Despite judging neither microaggressions nor social faux pas to be definitively intentional, participants judged microaggressions as more blameworthy. In Experiment 2, microaggressions without explicit mental state information elicited a similar profile of judgments to those accompanied by explicit prejudiced or ignorant beliefs. Although they were, like faux pas, judged not to cause harm intentionally, microaggressive comments appeared to be judged more blameworthy on account of enduring prejudice thought to be lurking behind a speaker's false beliefs. Our current research demonstrates a distinctive profile of moral judgment for microaggressions. 

We examined how robots can successfully serve as moral advisors for humans. We evaluated the effectiveness of moral advice grounded in deontological, virtue, and Confucian role ethics frameworks in encouraging humans to make honest decisions. Participants were introduced to a tempting situation where extra monetary gain could be earned by choosing to cheat (i.e., violating the norm of honesty). Prior to their decision, a robot encouraged honest choices by offering a piece of moral advice grounded in one of the three ethics frameworks. While the robot’s advice was overall not effective at discouraging dishonest choices, there was preliminary evidence indicating the relative effectiveness of moral advice drawn from deontology. We also explored how different cultural orientations (i.e., vertical and horizontal collectivism and individualism) influence honest decisions across differentially-framed moral advice. We found that individuals with a strong cultural orientation of establishing their own power and status through competition (i.e., high vertical individualism) were more likely to make dishonest choices, especially when moral advice was drawn from virtue ethics. Our findings suggest the importance of considering different ethical frameworks and cultural differences to design robots that can guide humans to comply with the norm of honesty. 

Because robots are perceived as moral agents, they hold significant persuasive power over humans. It is thus crucial for robots to behave in accordance with human systems of morality and to use effective strategies for human-robot moral communication. In this work, we evaluate two moral communication strategies: a norm-based strategy grounded in deontological ethics, and a role-based strategy grounded in role ethics, in order to test the effectiveness of these two strategies in encouraging compliance with norms grounded in role expectations. Our results suggest two major findings: (1) reflective exercises may increase the efficacy of role-based moral language and (2) opportunities for moral practice following robots’ use of moral language may facilitate role-centered moral cultivation. 

We examined whether a robot that proactively offers moral advice promoting the norm of honesty can discourage people from cheating. Participants were presented with an opportunity to cheat in a die-rolling game. Prior to playing the game, participants received from either a NAO robot or a human, a piece of moral advice grounded in either deontological, virtue, or Confucian role ethics, or did not receive any advice. We found that moral advice grounded in Confucian role ethics could reduce cheating when the advice was delivered by a human. No advice was effective when a robot delivered moral advice. These findings highlight challenges in building robots that can possibly guide people to follow moral norms. 

As technology continues to advance, the United States Military must consider how a robot will be best integrated and accepted as a team member within a unit. The current project examines how the actions of a robot can contribute to its overall acceptance as a team member.