Ethical Asymmetry in Human-Robot Interaction - An Empirical Test of Sparrow's Hypothesis

TL;DR

This empirical study tested Sparrow's ethical asymmetry hypothesis in human-robot interaction, finding no support for the hypothesis and highlighting the influence of moral permissibility on perceptions of virtue.

Contribution

The paper provides an empirical test of Sparrow's hypothesis using a novel adaptation of the Questionnaire on Cardinal Virtues in HRI context.

Findings

Moral permissibility significantly affects perceived virtue and moral judgments.

The relationship between perceived moral permissibility and virtue scores is cubic and symmetrical.

Sparrow's asymmetry hypothesis was not supported by the data.

Abstract

The ethics of human-robot interaction (HRI) have been discussed extensively based on three traditional frameworks: deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics. We conducted a mixed within/between experiment to investigate Sparrow's proposed ethical asymmetry hypothesis in human treatment of robots. The moral permissibility of action (MPA) was manipulated as a subject grouping variable, and virtue type (prudence, justice, courage, and temperance) was controlled as a within-subjects factor. We tested moral stimuli using an online questionnaire with Perceived Moral Permissibility of Action (PMPA) and Perceived Virtue Scores (PVS) as response measures. The PVS measure was based on an adaptation of the established Questionnaire on Cardinal Virtues (QCV), while the PMPA was based on Malle et al. [39] work. We found that the MPA significantly influenced the PMPA and perceived virtue scores. The best-fitting model to describe the relationship between PMPA and PVS was cubic, which is symmetrical in nature. Our study did not confirm Sparrow's asymmetry hypothesis. The adaptation of the QCV is expected to have utility for future studies, pending additional psychometric property assessments.