Human-AI cooperation makes individuals more risk seeking: The mediating role of perceived agentic responsibility

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1885

Abstract

Abstract:

With advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), artificial intelligence is increasingly becoming a “helper” for humans. In the process of human-AI cooperation risk decision-making, it is urgent to clarify whether artificial intelligence will encourage human risk-taking behavior and how perceived agentic responsibility can play a role. In order to investigate the impact and mechanism of human-AI cooperation on individual risk decision-making, four experiments were conducted. The results showed that: (1) Participants in the control group (i.e., without cooperation) exhibited the highest risk-taking behavior, while those engaged in human-AI cooperation took greater risks than those in human-human cooperation. (2) Individual agentic responsibility partially mediated the effect of human-AI cooperation on individuals’ risk decision-making. Specifically, participants reported a higher sense of agentic responsibility in human-AI cooperation compared to human-human cooperation, which contributed to increased risk-taking. (3) Outcome feedback significantly moderates the mediating role of individual agentic responsibility regarding the influence of human-AI cooperation (versus human-human cooperation) on individuals’ risk decision-making. Notably, under success conditions, participants attributed greater responsibility to themselves in human-AI collaboration compared to human-human collaboration. Conversely, under failure conditions, there was no significant difference in responsibility attribution between the two types of collaboration.

Key words: human-AI cooperation, human-human cooperation, risk decision making, perceived agentic responsibility, outcome feedback

GENG Xiaowei, LIU Chao, SU Li, HAN Bingxue, ZHANG Qiaoming, WU Mingzheng. (2025). Human-AI cooperation makes individuals more risk seeking: The mediating role of perceived agentic responsibility. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(11), 1885-1900.

Figures/Tables 15

References 46

[1]	Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition:A dual perspective model. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 195-255). Academic Press.
[2]	Atanasov, P., & Kunreuther, H. (2016). Cautious defection: Group representatives cooperate and risk less than individuals. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(4), 372-380.
[3]	Awad, E., Levine, S., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Dsouza, S., Tenenbaum, J. B., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I. (2019). Drivers are blamed more than their automated cars when both make mistakes. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(2), 134-143.
[4]	Bolton, G. E., Ockenfels, A., & Stauf, J. (2015). Social responsibility promotes conservative risk behavior. European Economic Review, 74, 109-127.
[5]	Charness, G., & Jackson, M. O. (2009). The role of responsibility in strategic risk-taking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69(3), 241-247.
[6]	Chong, L., Zhang, G., Goucher-Lambert, K., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2022). Human confidence in artificial intelligence and in themselves: The evolution and impact of confidence on adoption of AI advice. Computers in Human Behavior, 127, 107018.
[7]	Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383. pmid: 5645600
[8]	Decety, J., Jackson, P. L., Sommerville, J. A., Chaminade, T., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2004). The neural bases of cooperation and competition: An fMRI investigation. Neuroimage, 23(2), 744-751. pmid: 15488424
[9]	Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of big data - Evolution, challenges and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 48, 63-71.
[10]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). Gpower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 pmid: 17695343
[11]	Forgiarini, M., Gallucci, M., & Maravita, A. (2011). Racism and the empathy for pain on our skin. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 108. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00108 pmid: 21687466
[12]	Franklin, M., Ashton, H., Awad, E., & Lagnado, D. (2022). Causal framework of artificial autonomous agent responsibility. In V. Conitzer & J. Tasioulas (Chair), Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 276-284), Oxford United Kingdom,
[13]	Gombolay, M. C., Gutierrez, R. A., Clarke, S. G., Sturla, G. F., & Shah, J. A (2015). Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human-robot teams. Autonomous AI, 39(3), 293-312
[14]	Gong, J. P., Zhang, X., Zhang, G., Wang, Q. L., & Fan, C. X. (2021). The relationship between college students subjective well-being, coping styles, and social desirability. Chinese Journal of Health Psychology, 29(8), 1262-1265.
[15]	Haesevoets, T., De Cremer, D., Dierckx, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2021). human-AI collaboration in managerial decision making. Computers in Human Behavior, 119, Article 106730..
[16]	Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
[17]	He, H., Martinsson, P., & Sutter, M. (2012). Group decision making under risk: An experiment with student couples. Economics Letters, 117(3), 691-693.
[18]	Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575-604.
[19]	Hinds, P. J., Roberts, T. L., & Jones, H. (2004). Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1-2), 151-181.
[20]	Hong, J. W., Cruz, I., & Williams, D. (2021). AI, you can drive my car: How we evaluate human drivers vs. self-driving cars. Computers in Human Behavior, 125, 106944.
[21]	Huang, L., Yang, Y. Z., & Ji, Z. M. (2003). Applicability of the Positive and Negative Affect Scale in Chinese. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 17(1), 54-56.
[22]	Kim, T., & Hinds, P. (2006, September). Who should I blame? Effects of autonomy and transparency on attributions in human-robot interaction. ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.
[23]	Lei, X., & Rau, P. P. (2021a). Effect of relative status on responsibility attributions in human-robot collaboration: Mediating role of responsibility attribution and moderating role of power distance orientation. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, 106820.
[24]	Lei, X., & Rau, P. P. (2021b). Should I Blame the human or the robot? attribution within a human-robot group. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(2), 363-377.
[25]	Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443-453. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271651 pmid: 15743980
[26]	Matsui, T., & Koike, A. (2021). Who is to blame? The appearance of virtual agents and the attribution of perceived responsibility. Sensors, 21(8), 2646.
[27]	Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213-225.
[28]	Mittal, S. K. (2022). Behavior biases and investment decision: Theoretical and research framework. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 14(2), 213-228.
[29]	Oliveira, R., Arriaga, P., Correia, F., & Paiva, A. (2020). Looking beyond collaboration: Socioemotional positive, negative and task-oriented behaviors in human-robot group interactions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(2), 505-518.
[30]	Parise, S., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., & Waters, K. (1996, November). My partner is a real dog: Cooperation with social agents. Paper presented at the meeting of the CSCW 96 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM.
[31]	Posard, M. N., & Rinderknecht, R. G. (2015). Do people like working with computers more than human beings? Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 232-238.
[32]	Savela, N., Kaakinen, M., Ellonen, N., & Oksanen, A. (2021). Sharing a work team with AI: The negative effect of robot co-workers on in-group identification with the work team. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106585.
[33]	Schoemann, A. M., Boulton, A. J., & Short, S. D. (2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379-386.
[34]	Silva, K., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2020). The influence of romantic partners on male risk-taking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(5), 1405-1415.
[35]	Tang, W. C. (2017). Men and women working together can make of job easier: The study on risk decisions made by two-person group of different genders [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications.
[36]	Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
[37]	Wang, Z., Kuang, Y., Tang, H., Gao, C., Chen, A., & Chan, K. (2018). Are decisions made by group representatives more risk averse? The effect of responsibility attribution. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(3), 311-323.
[38]	Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal Personal Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
[39]	Wen, Z. L., & Ye, B. J. (2014). Different methods for testing moderated mediation models: Competitors or backups? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(5), 714-726. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00714
[40]	Xiong, W., Wang, C., & Ma, L. (2023). Partner or subordinate? Sequential risky decision-making behaviors under human-AI collaboration contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107556.
[41]	Xu, S. H., Fang, Z., & Rao, H. Y. (2013). Real or hypothetical monetary rewards modulates risk taking behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(8), 874-886. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00874
[42]	Xu, S. H., Pan, Y., Qu, Z., Fang, Z., Yang, Z. J., Yang, F.,... Rao, H. Y. (2018). Differential effects of real versus hypothetical monetary reward magnitude on risk-taking behavior and brain activity. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 3712.
[43]	You, S., Nie, J., Suh, K., & Sundar, S. S. (2011). When the robot criticizes you… Self-serving bias in human-robot interaction. 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).
[44]	Yue, B., & Li, H. (2023). The impact of human-AI collaboration types on consumer evaluation and usage intention: A perspective of responsibility attribution. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1277861.
[45]	Yue, L. Z., Li, S., & Liang, Z. Y. (2018). New avenues for the development of domain-specific nature of risky decision making. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(5), 928-938.
[46]	Zhao, S. (2004). A study on the relationship between Sensation seeking (SS) and mental health of college students [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Northeast Normal University, Changchun.

Predictive variables	Equation 1 (dependent variable: risk taking)			Equation 2 (Dependent variable: Perceived agentic responsibility)			Equation 3 (dependent variable: risk taking)
Predictive variables	β	SE	t	β	SE	t	β	SE	t
constant		2.37	2.93^**		0.38	8.98^***		2.78	1.09
Age	?0.002	0.09	?0.03	0.03	0.01	0.55	?0.01	0.09	?0.13
Gender	?0.16	0.50	?2.44^*	?0.12	0.08	?2.38^*	?0.13	0.50	?2.00^*
Sensation Seeking	?0.01	0.03	?0.12	?0.03	0.004	?0.62	< 0.001	0.03	?0.01
Partner	0.42	0.43	6.52^***	0.69	0.07	13.32^***	0.26	0.59	3.00^**
Perceived agentic responsibility							0.23	0.45	2.59^*
F	F (4, 194) = 12.86^***			F (4, 194) = 47.16^***			F (5, 193) = 11.93^***
R2	0.21			0.49			0.24

Predictive variables	Equation 1 (dependent variable: risk taking)			Equation 2 (Dependent variable: Perceived agentic responsibility)			Equation 3 (dependent variable: risk taking)
Predictive variables	β	SE	t	β	SE	t	β	SE	t
constant		2.37	2.93^**		0.38	8.98^***		2.78	1.09
Age	?0.002	0.09	?0.03	0.03	0.01	0.55	?0.01	0.09	?0.13
Gender	?0.16	0.50	?2.44^*	?0.12	0.08	?2.38^*	?0.13	0.50	?2.00^*
Sensation Seeking	?0.01	0.03	?0.12	?0.03	0.004	?0.62	< 0.001	0.03	?0.01
Partner	0.42	0.43	6.52^***	0.69	0.07	13.32^***	0.26	0.59	3.00^**
Perceived agentic responsibility							0.23	0.45	2.59^*
F	F (4, 194) = 12.86^***			F (4, 194) = 47.16^***			F (5, 193) = 11.93^***
R2	0.21			0.49			0.24

Predictive variables	Equation 1 (dependent variable: risk level)			Equation 2 (dependent variable: perceived agentic responsibility)			Equation 3 (dependent variable: risk level)
Predictive variables	β	SE	t	β	SE	t	β	SE	t
constant	0.003	0.07	0.04	?0.01	0.07	?0.15	?0.03	0.07	?0.44
Age	?0.01	0.07	?0.12	0.01	0.07	0.20	?0.01	0.06	?0.17
Gender	?0.10	0.07	?1.47	?0.07	0.07	?1.05	?0.08	0.07	?1.21
Sensation Seeking	0.06	0.07	0.84	?0.01	0.07	?0.15	0.07	0.06	0.03
Positive emotions	0.14	0.07	1.86	0.14	0.07	1.87	0.10	0.07	1.36
Negative emotions	?0.09	0.07	?1.22	?0.05	0.07	?0.70	?0.09	0.07	?1.31
Collaboration partner	0.34	0.07	5.05^***	0.22	0.07	3.28^**	0.30	0.07	4.50^***
Result feedback	?0.02	0.08	?0.20	0.33	0.08	4.36^***	?0.09	0.08	?1.20
Perceived agentic responsibility							0.25	0.07	3.57^***
feedback x Partner	0.05	0.07	0.79	?0.18	0.07	?2.61^**	0.06	0.07	0.94
feedback x perceived agentic responsibility							0.13	0.07	1.82
F	F (8, 190) = 5.67^***			F (8, 190) = 5.13^***			F (10, 188) = 6.50^***
R2	0.19			0.18			0.26

Predictive variables	Equation 1 (dependent variable: risk level)			Equation 2 (dependent variable: perceived agentic responsibility)			Equation 3 (dependent variable: risk level)
Predictive variables	β	SE	t	β	SE	t	β	SE	t
constant	0.003	0.07	0.04	?0.01	0.07	?0.15	?0.03	0.07	?0.44
Age	?0.01	0.07	?0.12	0.01	0.07	0.20	?0.01	0.06	?0.17
Gender	?0.10	0.07	?1.47	?0.07	0.07	?1.05	?0.08	0.07	?1.21
Sensation Seeking	0.06	0.07	0.84	?0.01	0.07	?0.15	0.07	0.06	0.03
Positive emotions	0.14	0.07	1.86	0.14	0.07	1.87	0.10	0.07	1.36
Negative emotions	?0.09	0.07	?1.22	?0.05	0.07	?0.70	?0.09	0.07	?1.31
Collaboration partner	0.34	0.07	5.05^***	0.22	0.07	3.28^**	0.30	0.07	4.50^***
Result feedback	?0.02	0.08	?0.20	0.33	0.08	4.36^***	?0.09	0.08	?1.20
Perceived agentic responsibility							0.25	0.07	3.57^***
feedback x Partner	0.05	0.07	0.79	?0.18	0.07	?2.61^**	0.06	0.07	0.94
feedback x perceived agentic responsibility							0.13	0.07	1.82
F	F (8, 190) = 5.67^***			F (8, 190) = 5.13^***			F (10, 188) = 6.50^***
R2	0.19			0.18			0.26

Intermediary variable	Result feedback	effect	BootSE	BootCI lower limit	BootCI upper limit
Perceived Agentic Responsibility	Success (0)	0.0821	0.0354	0.0246	0.1622
Perceived Agentic Responsibility	Failed (1)	0.0094	0.0233	?0.0329	0.0607