多元文化经历提升人类对机器人的利他行为及心智知觉的中介作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00146

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

人类步入人工智能时代, 人工智能快速迭代、迅猛发展、不断变革, 引发诸多伦理问题。其中一个核心关切便是在人类与AI和谐共生的指导思想之下, 人类是否会对机器人持有与人类同等的道德关怀并对其做出利他行为。目前, 鲜有研究探讨哪些文化心理因素提高人类对机器人的利他行为及其背后的深层心理机制。本研究旨在从多元文化经历的视角开展科学探索。基于中西两种文化样本的研究发现, 个体的多元文化经历正向预测人类对机器人的利他行为, 人对机器人的心智感知起部分中介作用。此中介模型在中西文化被试中不存在显著文化差异, 表明该模型具备一定的文化普适性。最后, 线上启动实验研究虽未能证实因果机制, 但存在符合研究假设的总体趋势。本研究丰富了多元文化经历的下游效应, 对探讨何种前因变量会提高人类对机器人的利他行为及其解释机制做出了一定的原创贡献。

关键词: 多元文化经历, 人机交互, 利他行为, 心智知觉, 文化普适

Abstract:

Artificial intelligence is developing rapidly, and the future of human beings is closely related to it. The question of how humans and robots can better work together has become a pressing concern for social psychologists. Human-robot interaction is a two-way process, and research has explored how robots can better serve humans. Whether humans share the same moral concern or even act altruistically toward robots is critical, as it will feed into technological advances and the stability of human society. Few studies have examined which cultural and psychological factors shape people's willingness and behavior to accord robots moral status, i.e., whether they are believed to deserve the same rights and benefits as humans and to perform more altruistic acts toward them. Through two sub-studies and a causal study, the present work seeks to explore whether individuals' multicultural experiences enhance altruistic behavior toward robots and whether human mental perceptions of robots play a mediating role.

Study 1a began with a cross-sectional study in which 217 valid participants with an average age of 25.64 years were collected in China through the Questionnaire Star platform to measure their multicultural experiences, altruistic behavior toward robots, mind perceptions, and demographic information. To verify the model's cross-cultural generalizability that multicultural experiences enhance altruistic behavior toward robots, Study 1b replicated the procedure of Study 1a on Mturk with 313 valid participants (mean age 33.94 years) using the English version of the questionnaire from Study 1a. Finally, to infer the causal relationship between multicultural experiences and altruistic behavior toward robots, Study 2 recruited Chinese participants with six months or more of overseas experiences to prime participants' multicultural experiences through reading and writing tasks. A total of 249 valid data were collected in Study 2, with a mean age of 25.96 years, and participants were randomly divided into a multicultural experience priming group, hometown experience priming group, and control group. After priming, participants were asked to fill out the manipulation check scale, the Mind Perception Scale, and the Altruistic Behavior Toward Robots Questionnaire, with the order of the three measures presented randomly. Finally, participants reported their information on a number of demographic variables.

Study 1a found that individuals' multicultural experiences positively predicted altruistic behavior toward robots, with mind perceptions playing a partially mediating role. Study 1b found that this mediating chain was cross-culturally consistent across Chinese and Western participants, with no Chinese or Western cultural differences. We infer that this effect has some degree of cultural generalizability. Study 2 found that multicultural experiences were manipulated successfully, but the main effect of multicultural experiences on altruistic behavior toward robots did not reach significance.

The current work reveals that individuals’ multicultural experiences increase altruistic behavior toward robots. Specifically, the richer an individual's multicultural experiences, the more likely they are to perceive the robots as possessing mental perception. Thus, they are more likely to trigger altruistic behavior toward robots. At the same time, this effect is to some extent cross-culturally generalizable. The results of our studies enrich the theoretical predictions of multicultural experiences, identify possible “downstream effects” of multicultural experiences, and make an original contribution to the study of what factors enhance human altruistic behavior toward robots.

Key words: multicultural experiences, human-computer interaction, altruistic behavior, mind perception, cultural universality

中图分类号:

B849: C91

滕玥, 张昊天, 赵偲琪, 彭凯平, 胡晓檬. (2024). 多元文化经历提升人类对机器人的利他行为及心智知觉的中介作用. 心理学报, 56(2), 146-160.

TENG Yue, ZHANG Haotian, ZHAO Siqi, PENG Kaiping, HU Xiaomeng. (2024). Multicultural experiences enhance human altruism toward robots and the mediating role of mind perception. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(2), 146-160.

图/表 16

参考文献 55

[1]	Adair, W. L., & Xiong, T. X. (2018). How Chinese and Caucasian Canadians conceptualize creativity: The mediating role of uncertainty avoidance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(2), 223-238. doi: 10.1177/0022022117713153 URL
[2]	Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.586 pmid: 11129362
[3]	Anthis, J. R., & Paez, E. (2021). Moral circle expansion: A promising strategy to impact the far future. Futures: The Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies, 130, 102756.
[4]	Aytug, Z. G., Kern, M. C., & Dilchert, S. (2018). Multicultural experience: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 65, 1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.04.004 URL
[5]	Bartneck, C. (2008). Who like androids more: Japanese or US Americans? In M. Buss & K. Kühnlenz (Chair), Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN (pp. 553-557). Munich, Germany.
[6]	Bartneck, C., Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kato, K. (2005). Cultural differences in attitudes towards robots. In K. Dautenha (Chair), Proceedings of the AISB Symposium on Robot Companions: Hard Problems and Open Challenges In Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 1-4). Hartfield, UK.
[7]	Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press, New York.
[8]	Bigman, Y. E., & Gray, K. (2018). People are averse to machines making moral decisions. Cognition, 181, 21-34. doi: S0010-0277(18)30208-7 pmid: 30107256
[9]	Cao, J., Galinsky, A. D., & Maddux, W. W. (2013). Does travel broaden the mind? breadth of foreign experiences increases generalized trust. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 5(5), 515-527.
[10]	Caviola, L., Everett, J. A. C., & Faber, N. S. (2019). The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(6), 10111029.
[11]	Crimston, C. R., Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., & Bastian, B. (2016). Moral expansiveness: Examining variability in the extension of the moral world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 636-653. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000086 pmid: 26751743
[12]	Danaher, J. (2019). Welcoming robots into the moral circle: A defence of ethical behaviourism. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2023-2049. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00119-x
[13]	Dang, J., & Liu, L. (2021). Robots are friends as well as foes: Ambivalent attitudes toward mindful and mindless AI robots in the United States and China. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106612. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106612 URL
[14]	de Graaf, M. M. A., & Ben Allouch, S. (2016). Anticipating Our Future Robot Society: The Evaluation of Future Robot Applications From A User's Perspective. In J. Kaye & A. Druin (Chair), 2016 25th Ieee International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 755-762). New York, USA.
[15]	Ding, X. J., Yu, F., & Xu, L. Y. (2020). The origin of and solution to people’s aversion to AI making moral decisions. Journal of Dialectics of Nature, 42(12), 7-14.
	[丁晓军, 喻丰, 许丽颖. (2020). 人们对人工智能做道德决策的厌恶感之源及解决之道. 自然辩证法通讯, 42(12), 7-14.]
[16]	Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Kupanoff, K., & Laible, D. (1999). Early adolescence and prosocial/moral behavior I: The role of individual processes. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(1), 5-16. doi: 10.1177/0272431699019001001 URL
[17]	Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619.
[18]	Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 101-124. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.651387 pmid: 22754268
[19]	Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter?. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918-1927. doi: 10.1177/0956797613480187 pmid: 23955356
[20]	Hu, X., Zhu, Y., Yu, F., Wilder, D. A., Zhang, L., Chen, S. X., & Peng, K. (2020). A cross‐cultural examination on global orientations and moral foundations. PsyCh Journal, 9(1), 108-117. doi: 10.1002/pchj.v9.1 URL
[21]	Hu, X. M., Han, Y. F., Yu, F., & Peng, K. P. (2021). The double-edged sword effect of multicultural experiences: Psychological consequences and boundary conditions. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 27(1), 1-10.
	[胡晓檬, 韩雨芳, 喻丰, 彭凯平. (2021). 多元文化经历的双刃剑效应: 心理后果与边界条件. 应用心理学, 27(1), 1-10.]
[22]	Kaplan, F. (2004). Who is afraid of the humanoid? Investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 1(03), 465-480. doi: 10.1142/S0219843604000289 URL
[23]	Kirkland, K., Crimston, C. R., Jetten, J., Rudnev, M., Acevedo-Triana, C., Amiot, C. E.,... Bastian, B. (2022). Moral expansiveness around the world: The role of societal factors across 36 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(3), 305-318. doi: 10.1177/19485506221101767 URL
[24]	Klincewicz, M. (2016). Artificial intelligence as a means to moral enhancement. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 48(1), 171-187.
[25]	Kühnlenz, B., Sosnowski, S., Buß, M., Wollherr, D., Kühnlenz, K., & Buss, M. (2013). Increasing helpfulness towards a robot by emotional adaption to the user. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(4), 457-476. doi: 10.1007/s12369-013-0182-2 URL
[26]	Lee, S. A., & Liang, Y. (Jake). (2016). The role of reciprocity in verbally persuasive robots. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(8), 524-527.
[27]	Leung, A. K. Y, Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity. American Psychologist, 63(3), 169-181. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.169 URL
[28]	Lu, J. G., Quoidbach, J., Gino, F., Chakroff, A., Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2017). The dark side of going abroad: How broad foreign experiences increase immoral behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 112(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000068 pmid: 28032773
[29]	Lund, V., Mejdell, C., Röcklinsberg, H., Anthony, R., & Håstein, T. (2007). Expanding the moral circle: Farmed fish as objects of moral concern. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 75(2), 109-118. pmid: 17578250
[30]	Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1047-1061. doi: 10.1037/a0014861 pmid: 19379035
[31]	Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., Arnold, T., Voiklis, J., & Cusimano, C. (2015, March). Sacrifice one for the good of many? Presented at HRI ’15, Portland, OR.
[32]	McGuire, L., Palmer, S. B., & Faber, N. S. (2022). The development of speciesism: Age-related differences in the moral view of animals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(2), 228-237. doi: 10.1177/19485506221086182 URL
[33]	Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-y., & Liu, Z. (2015). Polycultural psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 631-659. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015001 pmid: 25251481
[34]	Nam, T. (2019). Citizen attitudes about job replacement by robotic automation. Futures, 109, 39-49. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2019.04.005
[35]	Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 81-130.
[36]	Nielsen, Y. A., Pfattheicher, S, & Keijsers, M. (2021). Prosocial behavior towards machines. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 260-265. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.004 URL
[37]	Nielsen, Y. A., Thielmann, I., Zettler, I., & Pfattheicher, S. (2022). Sharing money with humans versus computers: On the role of honesty-humility and (non-)social preferences. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(6), 1058-1068. doi: 10.1177/19485506211055622 URL
[38]	Nijssen, S. R. R., Müller, B. C. N., van Baaren, R. B., & Paulus, M. (2019). Saving the robot or the human? Robots Who feel deserve moral care. Social Cognition, 37(1), 41-S2.
[39]	Osswald, S., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Moral prototypes and moral behavior: Specific effects on emotional precursors of moral behavior and on moral behavior by the activation of moral prototypes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 1078-1094. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.v40:6 URL
[40]	Park, S., & Yu, J. (2017). The effects of multicultural experience on empathy in adolescents: Focused on mediating effect of multicultural acceptance and cultural empathy. Journal of Digital Convergence, 15(4), 499-510. doi: 10.14400/JDC.2017.15.4.499 URL
[41]	Pizarro, D. A., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Bloom, P. (2006). The creativity of everyday moral reasoning: Empathy, disgust, and moral persuasion. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 81-98). Cambridge University Press.
[42]	Sakuma, M., Kuramochi, K., Shimada, N., & Ito, R. (2019). Positive and Negative Opinions about Living with Robots in Japanese University Students. In Hri '19:2019 14th Acm/Ieee International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 640-641). Daegu, Korea (South).
[43]	Shank, D. B., & Desanti, A. (2018). Attributions of morality and mind to artificial intelligence after real-world moral violations. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 401-411. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.014 URL
[44]	Siegel, M., Breazeal, C., & Norton, M. I. (2009). Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 2563-2568). St. Louis, MO, USA.
[45]	Smith, E. R., Šabanović, S., & Fraune, M. R. (2021). Human-robot interaction through the lens of social psychological theories of intergroup behavior. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 1(2), 1-11. doi: 10.1142/S233954781320001X URL
[46]	Somanader, M. C., Saylor, M. M., & Levin, D. T. (2011). Remote control and children's understanding of robots. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(2), 239-247. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.01.005 pmid: 21349536
[47]	Srinivasan, V., & Takayama, L. (2016, March). Help me please: Robot politeness strategies for soliciting help from humans. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2016), New York, NY.
[48]	Tadmor, C. T., Hong, Y. Y., Chao, M. M., Wiruchnipawan, F., ＆ Wang, W. (2012). Multicultural experiences reduce intergroup bias through epistemic unfreezing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 750-772. doi: 10.1037/a0029719 pmid: 22905769
[49]	Tadmor, C. T., Tetlock, P. E., & Peng, K. (2006). Biculturalism and integrative complexity:Testing the acculturation complexity model. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2006(1), C1-C5.
[50]	Tanibe, T., Hashimoto, T., & Karasawa, K. (2017). We perceive a mind in a robot when we help it. Plos One, 12(7), e0180952.
[51]	Thellman, S., Silvervarg, A., & Ziemke, T. (2017). Folk-Psychological interpretation of human vs. humanoid robot behavior: Exploring the intentional stance toward robots. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1962-1968. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01962 pmid: 29184519
[52]	Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383-388. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006 pmid: 20579932
[53]	Xu, L. Y., & Yu, F. (2020). Factors that influence robot acceptance. Science Bulletin, 65(6), 496-510. doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2019.12.008 URL
	[许丽颖, 喻丰. (2020). 机器人接受度的影响因素. 科学通报, 65(6), 496-510.]
[54]	Yam, K. C., Bigman, Y. E., Tang, P. M., Ilies, R., de Cremer, D., Soh, H., & Gray, K. (2021). Robots at work: People prefer- and forgive-service robots with perceived feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(10), 1557-1572. doi: 10.1037/apl0000834 URL
[55]	Zhou, H., & Long, L. R. (2014). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(6), 942-950.
	[周浩, 龙立荣. (2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 12(6), 942-950.]

变量	M	SD	Cronbach’s α	1	2	3	4	5	6
1 性别	0.48	0.50	−	−
2 年龄	25.64	3.91	−	0.03	−
3 最高学历	5.36	0.66	−	0.04	0.04	−
4 主观社会经济地位	6.24	1.61	−	−0.15^*	0.08	−0.08	−
5 多元文化经历	4.56	0.86	0.86	0.06	0.10	−0.09	0.20^**	−
6 心智知觉	3.86	1.68	0.93	−0.06	0.24^***	−0.06	0.21^**	0.42^***	−
7 对机器人的利他行为	4.56	1.30	−	−0.02	0.22^**	−0.15^*	0.12	0.35^***	0.45^***

变量	M	SD	Cronbach’s α	1	2	3	4	5	6
1 性别	0.48	0.50	−	−
2 年龄	25.64	3.91	−	0.03	−
3 最高学历	5.36	0.66	−	0.04	0.04	−
4 主观社会经济地位	6.24	1.61	−	−0.15^*	0.08	−0.08	−
5 多元文化经历	4.56	0.86	0.86	0.06	0.10	−0.09	0.20^**	−
6 心智知觉	3.86	1.68	0.93	−0.06	0.24^***	−0.06	0.21^**	0.42^***	−
7 对机器人的利他行为	4.56	1.30	−	−0.02	0.22^**	−0.15^*	0.12	0.35^***	0.45^***

变量	心智知觉		对机器人的利他行为
	未纳入控制变量	纳入控制变量	未纳入控制变量	纳入控制变量
	β (SE)	β (SE)	β (SE)	Β (SE)
控制变量：
性别		−0.23 (0.21)		−0.05 (0.16)
年龄		0.08 (0.03) ^**		0.04 (0.02) ^*
最高学历		−0.07 (0.15)		−0.24 (0.12) ^*
主观社会经济地位		0.11 (0.07)		−0.01 (0.05)
预测变量：
多元文化经历	0.82 (0.12) ^***	0.74 (0.12) ^***	0.30 (0.10) ^**	0.29 (0.10) ^**
中介变量：
心智知觉			0.29 (0.05) ^***	0.26 (0.05) ^***
R²	0.17	0.23	0.24	0.26
ΔR²	0.17	0.21	0.23	0.25
F	45.29^***	12.78^***	32.96^***	12.43^***

变量	心智知觉		对机器人的利他行为
	未纳入控制变量	纳入控制变量	未纳入控制变量	纳入控制变量
	β (SE)	β (SE)	β (SE)	Β (SE)
控制变量：
性别		−0.23 (0.21)		−0.05 (0.16)
年龄		0.08 (0.03) ^**		0.04 (0.02) ^*
最高学历		−0.07 (0.15)		−0.24 (0.12) ^*
主观社会经济地位		0.11 (0.07)		−0.01 (0.05)
预测变量：
多元文化经历	0.82 (0.12) ^***	0.74 (0.12) ^***	0.30 (0.10) ^**	0.29 (0.10) ^**
中介变量：
心智知觉			0.29 (0.05) ^***	0.26 (0.05) ^***
R²	0.17	0.23	0.24	0.26
ΔR²	0.17	0.21	0.23	0.25
F	45.29^***	12.78^***	32.96^***	12.43^***

效应类型	效应值	效果量(%)	95%的置信区间
效应类型	效应值	效果量(%)	上限	下限
未纳入控制变量
直接效应	0.30	57	0.10	0.50
间接效应	0.23	43	0.14	0.35
总效应	0.53
纳入控制变量
直接效应	0.29	58	0.004	0.09
间接效应	0.21	42	0.12	0.34
总效应	0.50