@article{JauernigUhlWalkowitz2022, author = {Jauernig, Johanna and Uhl, Matthias and Walkowitz, Gari}, title = {People prefer moral discretion to algorithms}, volume = {35}, pages = {2}, journal = {Philosophy \& Technology}, subtitle = {algorithm aversion beyond intransparency}, number = {1}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, address = {Cham}, issn = {2210-5441}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00495-y}, year = {2022}, abstract = {We explore aversion to the use of algorithms in moral decision-making. So far, this aversion has been explained mainly by the fear of opaque decisions that are potentially biased. Using incentivized experiments, we study which role the desire for human discretion in moral decision-making plays. This seems justified in light of evidence suggesting that people might not doubt the quality of algorithmic decisions, but still reject them. In our first study, we found that people prefer humans with decision-making discretion to algorithms that rigidly apply exogenously given human-created fairness principles to specific cases. In the second study, we found that people do not prefer humans to algorithms because they appreciate flesh-and-blood decision-makers per se, but because they appreciate humans' freedom to transcend fairness principles at will. Our results contribute to a deeper understanding of algorithm aversion. They indicate that emphasizing the transparency of algorithms that clearly follow fairness principles might not be the only element for fostering societal algorithm acceptance and suggest reconsidering certain features of the decision-making process.}, language = {en} } @article{SchoenmannBodenschatzUhletal.2023, author = {Sch{\"o}nmann, Manuela and Bodenschatz, Anja and Uhl, Matthias and Walkowitz, Gari}, title = {The Care-Dependent are Less Averse to Care Robots: An Empirical Comparison of Attitudes}, volume = {15}, journal = {International Journal of Social Robotics}, number = {6}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Heidelberg}, issn = {1875-4805}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01003-2}, pages = {1007 -- 1024}, year = {2023}, abstract = {A growing gap is emerging between the supply of and demand for professional caregivers, not least because of the ever-increasing average age of the world's population. One strategy to address this growing gap in many regions is the use of care robots. Although there have been numerous ethical debates about the use of robots in nursing and elderly care, an important question remains unexamined: how do the potential recipients of such care perceive situations with care robots compared to situations with human caregivers? Using a large-scale experimental vignette study, we investigated people's affective attitudes toward care robots. Specifically, we studied the influence of the caregiver's nature on participants' perceived comfort levels when confronted with different care scenarios in nursing homes. Our results show that the care-robot-related views of actual care recipients (i.e., people who are already affected by care dependency) differ substantially from the views of people who are not affected by care dependency. Those who do not (yet) rely on care placed care robots' value far below that of human caregivers, especially in a service-oriented care scenario. This devaluation was not found among care recipients, whose perceived level of comfort was not influenced by the caregiver's nature. These findings also proved robust when controlled for people's gender, age, and general attitudes toward robots.}, language = {en} } @article{SchoenmannBodenschatzUhletal.2024, author = {Sch{\"o}nmann, Manuela and Bodenschatz, Anja and Uhl, Matthias and Walkowitz, Gari}, title = {Contagious humans: A pandemic's positive effect on attitudes towards care robots}, volume = {2024}, pages = {102464}, journal = {Technology in Society}, number = {76}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {1879-3274}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102464}, year = {2024}, abstract = {History has shown that attitudes toward new technologies can change abruptly following disruptive events. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it became apparent that care robots enable increased social isolation. This feature of robotic care usually raises strong ethical concerns about potentially decreased comfort for the care-dependent. In a large-scale online study, we tested the influence of the pandemic on people's affective attitudes toward care robots. In vignettes on different care scenarios, we measured participants' perceived comfort levels in situations with care robots and human caregivers while controlling for their fear of infection with a viral disease. We found that people generally feel less comfortable with a care robot than with a human caregiver. However, those who had a strong fear of being infected during the pandemic did not devalue a care robot compared to a human caregiver. While care robots remain ethically contested, this study shows that affective attitudes toward care robots may change significantly if they can address an urgent need.}, language = {en} } @article{BodenschatzWalkowitz2024, author = {Bodenschatz, Anja and Walkowitz, Gari}, title = {Slipping on stereotypes - Interactive gender effects in the erosion of ethical behavior}, volume = {2025}, pages = {102785}, journal = {Journal of Economic Psychology}, number = {106}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0167-4870}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2024.102785}, year = {2024}, abstract = {We investigate how gender affects ethical outcomes in repeated same- or mixed-gender interactions. In our first study (N = 681), we use an experimental slippery-slope audit setting (Gino and Bazerman, 2009), in which an "auditor" makes an approval decision about the emerging unethical behavior of an "estimator" whose gender has been made salient. Based on previous evidence, unethical behavior is more likely to be accepted when it emerges gradually compared to a situation where it occurs abruptly. While we do not find a general slippery-slope effect across the whole sample, a significant slippery-slope effect is detected when the estimator is male (d = 0.36) or when the auditor is female (d = 0.27). We observe no slippery-slope effects in same-gender estimator-auditor constellations. However, in mixed-gender constellations, we find opposite effects: when male estimators are audited by females, we observe a significant slippery-slope effect (d = 0.53), driven by a high approval rate in the slippery-slope treatment. Conversely, when female estimators are audited by males, the approval rate increases in the abrupt treatment (d = 0.33). To better understand the drivers of these findings, we asked a different sample of participants (N = 90) to indicate the level of competence or honesty they attribute to male and female estimators in the estimation task. Responses suggest that the detected slippery-slope effects may be driven by auditors (especially females), attributing more competence to male estimators (d = 0.62), which is particularly relevant in the slippery-slope treatment where unethical behavior is difficult to detect. Moreover, our finding that male auditors are particularly inclined to approve overvaluations by females in the abrupt treatment, where unethical behavior becomes salient, may be driven by a more ethical assessment of female estimators (d = 0.90).}, language = {en} } @article{BodenschatzUhlWalkowitz2021, author = {Bodenschatz, Anja and Uhl, Matthias and Walkowitz, Gari}, title = {Autonomous systems in ethical dilemmas}, volume = {2021}, pages = {100145}, journal = {Computers in human behavior reports}, subtitle = {attitudes toward randomization}, number = {4}, publisher = {Amsterdam}, address = {Elsevier}, issn = {2451-9588}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100145}, year = {2021}, abstract = {It is ethically debatable whether autonomous systems should be programmed to actively impose harm on some to avoid greater harm for others. Surveys on ethical dilemmas in self-driving cars' programming have shown that people favor imposing harm on some people to save others from suffering and are consequently willing to sacrifice smaller groups to save larger ones in unavoidable accident situations. This is, if people are forced to directly impose harm. Contrary to humans, autonomous systems feature a salient deontological alternative for immediate decisions: the ability to randomize decisions over dilemmatic outcomes. To be applicable in democracies, randomization must correspond to people's moral intuition. In three studies (N = 935), we present empirical evidence that many people prefer to randomize between dilemmatic outcomes due to moral considerations. We find these preferences in hypothetical and incentivized decision-making situations. We also find that preferences are robust in different contexts and persist across Germany, with its Kantian cultural tradition, and the US, with its utilitarian cultural tradition.}, language = {en} }