Exploring the abuse of robots

Interaction Studies 9 (3):415-433 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Robots have been introduced into our society, but their social role is still unclear. A critical issue is whether the robot’s exhibition of intelligent behaviour leads to the users’ perception of the robot as being a social actor, similar to the way in which people treat computers and media as social actors. The first experiment mimicked Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment, but on a robot. The participants were asked to administer electric shocks to a robot, and the results show that people have fewer concerns about abusing robots than about abusing other people. We refined the methodology for the second experiment by intensifying the social dilemma of the users. The participants were asked to kill the robot. In this experiment, the intelligence of the robot and the gender of the participants were the independent variables, and the users’ destructive behaviour towards the robot the dependent variable. Several practical and methodological problems compromised the acquired data, but we can conclude that the robot’s intelligence had a significant influence on the users’ destructive behaviour. We discuss the encountered problems and suggest improvements. We also speculate on whether the users’ perception of the robot as being “sort of alive” may have influenced the participants’ abusive behaviour.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On the moral responsibility of military robots.Thomas Hellström - 2013 - Ethics and Information Technology 15 (2):99-107.
Can we trust robots?Mark Coeckelbergh - 2012 - Ethics and Information Technology 14 (1):53-60.
Moral appearances: emotions, robots, and human morality. [REVIEW]Mark Coeckelbergh - 2010 - Ethics and Information Technology 12 (3):235-241.
Editorial.Christoph Bartneck, Sheryl Brahnam, Antonella De Angeli & Catherine Pelachaud - 2008 - Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies 9 (3):397-401.
Robots, Trust and War.Thomas W. Simpson - 2011 - Philosophy and Technology 24 (3):325-337.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-12-29

Downloads
42 (#370,986)

6 months
12 (#202,587)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The other question: can and should robots have rights?David J. Gunkel - 2018 - Ethics and Information Technology 20 (2):87-99.
Moral Status and Intelligent Robots.John-Stewart Gordon & David J. Gunkel - 2021 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 60 (1):88-117.
Should we welcome robot teachers?Amanda J. C. Sharkey - 2016 - Ethics and Information Technology 18 (4):283-297.
Which Causes of Moral Beliefs Matter?Elizabeth O’Neill - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1070-1080.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

What is a Human?Peter H. Kahn, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Batya Friedman, Takayuki Kanda, Nathan G. Freier, Rachel L. Severson & Jessica Miller - 2007 - Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies 8 (3):363-390.

Add more references