Hazardous machinery:The assignment of agency and blame to robots versus non-autonomous machines

Autonomous robots increasingly perform functions that are potentially hazardous and could cause injury to people (e.g., autonomous driving). When this happens, questions will arise regarding responsibility, although autonomy complicates this issue – insofar as robots seem to control their own behaviour, where would blame be assigned? Across three experiments, we examined whether robots involved in harm are assigned agency and, consequently, blamed. In Studies 1 and 2, people assigned more agency to machines involved in accidents when they were described as ‘autonomous robots’ (vs. ‘machines’), and in turn, blamed them more, across a variety of contexts. In Study 2, robots and machines were assigned similar experience, and we found no evidence for a role of experience in blaming robots over machines. In Study 3, people assigned more agency and blame to a more (vs. less) sophisticated military robot involved in a civilian fatality. Humans who were responsible for robots' safe operation, however, were blamed similarly whether harms involved a robot (vs. machine; Study 1), or a more (vs. less; Study 3) sophisticated robot. These findings suggest that people spontaneously conceptualise robots' autonomy via humanlike agency, and consequently, consider them blameworthy agents

Immanent justice reasoning: Theory, research, and current directions.

Immanent justice reasoning involves causally attributing a deserved outcome to someone’s prior moral deeds or character, even when such a causal connection is physically implausible. This chapter describes a body of work showing that immanent justice reasoning is (a) motivated, in part, by the need to construe outcomes as deserved; (b) driven by intuitive more than controlled mental processes; and (c) more openly expressed among individuals who believe in supernatural phenomena. This review also documents several additional lines of inquiry exploring key assumptions about the nature, origins, and functions of immanent justice reasoning, including immanent justice reasoning for self-relevant fortuitous outcomes, the social-communicative function of immanent justice reasoning, and the interplay between immanent justice and normative causal reasoning. Early research portrayed immanent justice reasoning as unique to children, but the chapter identifies several conditions under which it is predictably displayed by adults. Immanent justice reasoning serves important psychological functions in adulthood, and is underpinned by reasoning processes and metaphysical assumptions that are not put away when children become adults