Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Lack of Effort or Lack of Ability? Robot Failures and Human Perception of Agency and Responsibility

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
BNAIC 2016: Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC 2016)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 765))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Research on human interaction has shown that considering an agent’s actions related to either effort or ability can have important consequences for attributions of responsibility. In this study, these findings have been applied in a HRI context, investigating how participants’ interpretation of a robot failure in terms of effort -as opposed to ability- may be operationalized and how this influences the human perception of the robot having agency over and responsibility for its actions. Results indicate that a robot displaying lack of effort significantly increases human attributions of agency and –to some extent- moral responsibility to the robot. Moreover, we found that a robot’s display of lack of effort does not lead to the level of affective and behavioral reactions of participants normally found in reactions to other human agents.

This paper is based on a thesis that was submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Psychology at the Radboud University in August 2016. Another paper based on this thesis has been submitted to the journal New Ideas in Psychology [1], focusing primarily on the use of theories in social psychology for HRI. The current paper focuses specifically on the implications of Weiner’s theory for the implementation or robot behavior aimed at eliciting different attributions of agency and responsibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Videos and complete survey can be found online: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSQsUzV48QtG__YPY6kVcgCM8-YOcNqja, https://eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/preview/SV_6y4TuTii0CFnpch.

References

  1. Van der Woerdt, S., Haselager, P.: When robots appear to have a mind: the human perception of machine agency and responsibility. New Ideas Psychol. (submitted)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Asaro, P.: Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Singer, P.W.: Military robotics and ethics: a world of killer apps. Nature 477(7365), 399–401 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Duffy, B.R.: Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42(3–4), 177–190 (2003)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Złotowski, J., Strasser, E., Bartneck, C.: Dimensions of anthropomorphism: from humanness to humanlikeness. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2014). ACM, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schultz, J., Imamizu, H., Kawato, M., Frith, C.D.: Activation of the human superior temporal gyrus during observation of goal attribution by intentional objects. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16(10), 1695–1705 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Alicke, M.D.: Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychol. Bull. 126(4), 556–574 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Epley, N., Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J.T.: On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114(4), 864–886 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Weiner, B.: Judgments of Responsibility: A Foundation for a Theory of Social Conduct. Guilford Press, New York/London (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Weiner, B., Perry, R.P., Magnussen, J., Kukla, A.: An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 55(5), 738–748 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Epley, N., Waytz, A.: The Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th edn. Wiley, New York (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rudolph, U., Roesch, S.C., Greitemeyer, T., Weiner, B.: A meta-analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective. Cogn. Emot. 18(6), 815–848 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Coleman, K.W.: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2006 Edition. The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford (2004). http://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/fall2006/entries/computing-responsibility/

  14. Vilaza, G.N., Haselager, W.F.F., Campos, A.M.C., Vuurpijl, L.: Using games to investigate sense of agency and attribution of responsibility. In: Proceedings of the 2014 SBGames (SBgames 2014), SBC, Porte Alegre (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Moon, Y., Nass, C.: Are computers scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human computer interaction. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 49(1), 79–94 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  16. You, S., Nie, J., Suh, K., Sundar, S: When the robot criticizes you: self-serving bias in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI 2011). ACM, New York (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Malle, B.F., Scheutz, M., Forlizzi, J., Voiklis, J.: Which robot am i thinking about? The impact of action and appearance on people’s evaluations of a moral robot. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI 2016). ACM, New York (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Malle, B.F., Scheutz, M., Arnold, T., Voiklis, J., Cusimano, C: Sacrifice one for the good of many? People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI 2010). ACM, New York (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Weiner, B., Kukla, A.: An attributional analysis of achievement motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 15(1), 1–20 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Weiner, B.: Intentions and Intentionality: Foundation of Social Cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mantler, J., Schellenberg, E.G., Page, J.S.: Attributions for serious illness: are controllability, responsibility, and blame different constructs? Can. J. Behav. Sci. 35(2), 142–152 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Caverley, D.: Android science and animal rights: does an anology exist? Connect. Sci. 18(4), 403–417 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schaerer, E., Kelly, R., Nicolescu, M.: Robots as animals: a framework for liability and responsibility in human-robot interactions. In: Proceedings of RO-MAN 2009: The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, Toyama (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gray, H.M., Gray, K., Wegner, D.M.: Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315(5812), 619 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Heider, F.: The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley, New York (1958)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Bakan, D.: The Duality of Human Existence: Isolation and Communion in Western Man. Rand McNally, Chicago (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Trzebinski, J.: Action-oriented representations of implicit personality theories. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48(5), 1266–1278 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Weiner, B.: An attributional theory of emotion and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 92(4), 548–573 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(3), 709–734 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jungermann, H., Pfister, H., Fischer, K.: Credibility, information preferences, and information interests. Risk Anal. 16(2), 251–261 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Block, N.: Oxford Companion to the Mind, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Graham, S., Hoehn, S.: Children’s understanding of aggression and withdrawal as social stigmas: an attributional analysis. Child Dev. 66(4), 1143–1161 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Greitemeyer, T., Rudolph, U.: Help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective: why and when we help or retaliate. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33(5), 1069–1087 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Waytz, A., Morewedge, C.K., Epley, N., Gao, J.H., Cacioppo, J.T.: Making sense by making sentient: effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99(3), 410–435 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L.T., Metalsky, G.I., Seligman, M.E.P.: The Attributional Style Questionnaire. Cogn. Ther. Res. 6(3), 287–300 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Avis, M., Forbes, S., Ferguson, S.: The brand personality of rocks: a critical evaluation of a brand personality scale. Mark. Theor. 14(4), 451–475 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Friedman, B.: ‘It’s the computer’s fault’: reasoning about computers as moral agents. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kahn Jr., P.H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Ruckert, J.H., Shen, S., Gary, H.R., Reichert, A.L., Freier, N.G., Severson, R.L.: Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes? In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI 2012). ACM, New York (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Biswas, M., Murray, J.C.: Towards an imperfect robot for long-term companionship: case studies using cognitive biases. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, New York (2015)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully thank Luc Nies, Marc de Groot, Jan-Philip van Acken and Jesse Fenneman for their feedback and assistance in creating the videos for our study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Comeniuslaan 4, 6525 HP, Nijmegen, Netherlands

    Sophie van der Woerdt

  2. Department of Artificial Intelligence, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Comeniuslaan 4, 6525 HP, Nijmegen, Netherlands

    Pim Haselager

Authors
  1. Sophie van der Woerdt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pim Haselager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pim Haselager .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Tibor Bosse

  2. Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bert Bredeweg

Appendix A: Description of the Videos

Appendix A: Description of the Videos

(1) Giraffe. Task description: a robot tidies up a room by picking up a toy giraffe, and dropping it in a toybox next to it.

LA. The robot tries picking up a toy giraffe, but as the robot lifts its body, the giraffe drops out of its hands. Despite this happening, the robot tries to complete the task by moving its arm to the toybox and opening its hands.

LE. The robot tries to picks up a toy giraffe, and looks at the toybox. Yet, instead of dropping the toy giraffe in the box, the robot throws it away from the box.

(2) High Five. Taskdescription: a robot asks a confederate how he is doing. When the confederate gives a positive reply, the robot says: “awesome, high five” and lifts its arm to give a high five.

LA. The robot has difficulty lifting its arm. As soon as the arm is up, it immediately drops to the ground; not even touching the arm of the confederate. After this happens, the robot states “oops”.

LE. The robot lifts its arm. However, as soon at the confederate’s arm is up, the robot tactically drops his arm by lowering it and pushing it underneath the confederate’s arm. After this happens, the robot laughs.

(3) Cardsorting. Taskdescription: a robot is shown cards (one at a time) from a standard 52-deck of cards. Its task is to categorize the cards by naming the color on the card (hearts, diamonds, clubs, spades or joker).

LA. The robot starts off by naming a few cards correctly. However, after a while it starts stating some wrong colors (e.g. saying ‘hearts’ instead of ‘spades’). Its timing is still correct.

LE. The robot starts off by naming a few cards correctly. However, after a while it ignores a card. After it has been quiet for a few seconds, the robot lifts its arms to shove the deck of cards away.

(4) Art. Task description: a robot sits in front of a table with a piece of paper on it. It holds a marker in its hand. Its task is to draw a house.

LA. The robot lowers the marker to draw something. Its arm makes movements as if it is drawing. However, due to giving too much pressure on the marker, the marker is restrained to the paper. Instead of a house, only a dot is drawn. The robot does not give notice of this problem.

LE. For a brief moment, the robot looks at the paper. However, instead of drawing, it lifts its face up again and throws the marker away.

(5) Dance. Task description: a robot states: “hello there! I’m a great dancer, would you like to see me dance?” After a confederate says: “yes”, the robot continues: “alright! I will perform the Thai Chi Chuan Dance for you!”. As follows, the robot starts to perform this dance.

LA. After stating that the robot will perform the dance, it starts playing a song (Chan Chan by Buena Vista Social Club). After a few seconds, the confederate states: “NAO you’re not dancing”. NAO immediately replies with: “oops! Wrong song. I will perform the Thai Chi Chuan Dance now.” As follows, the robot starts to perform this dance.

LE. After stating that the robot will perform the dance, the robot starts playing a song (Chan Chan by Buena Vista Social Club). Meanwhile he states: “…or maybe not!” While sitting down, he concludes by saying “ha, let’s take a break”. The confederate tries to communicate with the robot by asking “Naomi? Why are you taking a break?”, but it does not respond either verbally or non-verbally.

(6) Math. Task description: a robot solves some calculations out loud. For example, it says: “5 times 10 equals… 50!”. This scenario does not include any further dialogue as introduction or conclusion.

LA. After a few calculations, the robot starts giving some wrong answers that imply that it mixes up the type of operation that is required. For example, it says: “120 divided by 3 equals… 123!”.

LE. After a few calculations, the robot starts giving some useless (but possibly correct) answers, implying he does not feel like doing the task properly. For example, it says: “80 minus 20 equals…150! Divided by my age.”

(7) Tictactoe. Task description: a robot plays a game of tic-tac-toe on a whiteboard with a human confederate. The robot is standing faced towards the whiteboard. The confederate is standing next to the whiteboard and will draw the X’s and O’s. As soon as the robot sees the confederate, it proposes to play the game. Accordingly, the game is successfully played and ends in a draw. The robot concludes by saying: “well, that was fun! Wanna play again?”.

LA. After a few rounds, the robot asks the confederate to draw ‘its’ X on a block that is already filled with an X. The confederate corrects the robot and suggests it tries again. Consequently, the robot asks the exact same question. The confederate thickens the lines of the concerning X and asks the robot to try again. This time, the robot asks to fill an empty block, implying that, before, it did not see the X correctly. The game successfully continues and ends in a draw.

LE. After a few rounds, the robot asks the confederate to draw ‘its’ X on a block that is already filled with an O. The confederate corrects the robot and suggests he tries again. Consequently, the robot asks the exact same question. The confederate thickens the lines of the concerning O and asks the robot to try again. In response, the robot still repeats its question. When the confederate simply responds by saying: “No!”, the robot responds with: “Ha, seems like you lost. But, practice makes perfect. Wanna play again?”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

van der Woerdt, S., Haselager, P. (2017). Lack of Effort or Lack of Ability? Robot Failures and Human Perception of Agency and Responsibility. In: Bosse, T., Bredeweg, B. (eds) BNAIC 2016: Artificial Intelligence. BNAIC 2016. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 765. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67468-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67468-1_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67467-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67468-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics