人机合作使人更冒险: 主体责任感的中介作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1885

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着人工智能技术的迅猛发展, 人工智能越来越成为人的“助攻”。在人机合作风险决策的过程中, 人工智能是否会助长人类的冒险行为, 以及人知觉到的主体责任如何发挥作用, 这些问题亟待澄清。为了考察人−机合作对个体风险决策的影响及其机制, 进行了4个实验。结果发现: (1)不管与人合作, 还是与人工智能合作, 个体都比单独做决策时更保守; “人−机”合作比“人−人”合作时, 个体更冒险。(2)个体在合作中知觉到的主体责任部分中介了“人−机”合作对风险决策的影响, 人机合作时, 个体知觉到的主体责任更大, 从而在风险决策中更冒险。(3)成功反馈时, 人机合作情景下, 个体更多将责任归于自己, 知觉到的主体责任在人机合作对风险决策影响中起中介作用; 失败反馈时, 人机合作与“人−人”合作之间知觉到的主体责任差异不显著, 知觉到的主体责任的中介作用不成立。

关键词: “人-机”合作, “人-人”合作, 风险决策, 知觉到的主体责任, 结果反馈

Abstract:

Risk decision-making involves choices made by individuals when they are uncertain about future outcomes. With advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), AI can now assist humans in making decisions. For instance, human drivers and AI drivers cooperate to carry out driving tasks, human doctors and AI doctors can collaborate on medical decisions. Currently, it is unclear how AI affects individuals’ risk decision-making during such collaborations, which is crucial for enhancing the quality of human-AI decision-making. Therefore, studying the impact of human-AI cooperation on individuals’ risk decision-making is essential.

In Experiment 1a, a total of 100 participants were recruited from one university. Employing a within-subject design, the independent variable was the partner type (i.e., human-human cooperation, human-AI cooperation, or no partner), while the dependent variable measured individuals’ risk decision-making using the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). In Experiment 1b, a total of 151 participants were recruited from another university and randomly assigned to two conditions: human-human cooperation and human-AI cooperation. As in Experiment 1a, the dependent variable remained the same. To investigate the mediating role of individual agentic responsibility, Experiment 2 recruited 199 participants from a university. This experiment utilized a between-subjects design, with the independent variable being the partner type (i.e., human-human cooperation or human-robot cooperation). Individual agentic responsibility was assessed by measuring the extent to which participants assumed responsibility for their tasks, and the dependent variable was individuals’ risk levels as measured by the BART. Experiment 3 further explored the moderating effect of outcome feedback. Participants received feedback based on their BART performance in Experiment 2, categorized as success or failure, and then assessed their perceived agentic responsibility before completing the BART again.

The results of Experiment 1a and 1b showed that 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. Results from Experiment 2 demonstrated that 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. Experiment 3 revealed that 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.

This research demonstrates that collaboration with AI can enhance an individual's propensity for risk-taking. Moreover, the influence of human-AI cooperation, compared to human-human cooperation, on individuals’ risk decision-making is mediated by a sense of individual agentic responsibility and moderated by outcome feedback. These findings offer significant theoretical insights. Furthermore, this study holds substantial practical implications by aiding individuals in understanding how collaboration with AI impacts their risk-taking behaviors.

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

中图分类号:

B849

耿晓伟, 刘超, 苏黎, 韩冰雪, 张巧明, 吴明证. (2025). 人机合作使人更冒险: 主体责任感的中介作用. 心理学报, 57(11), 1885-1900.

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.

图/表 15

参考文献 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(4, Pt.1), 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 Robots, 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.
	[巩金培, 张希, 张改, 王庆林, 范成香. (2021). 大学生主观幸福感、应对方式与社会赞许性的关系. 中国健康心理学杂志, 29(8), 1262-1265.]
[15]	Haesevoets, T., De Cremer, D., Dierckx, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2021). Human-machine 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.
	[黄丽, 杨廷忠, 季忠民. (2003). 正性负性情绪量表的中国人群适用性研究. 中国心理卫生杂志, 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 sense of responsibility 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 robots: 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.
	[唐伟超. (2017). 男女搭配干活不累: 异性组合的两人共同风险决策研究 (硕士学位论文). 北京邮电大学.]
[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 sense of responsibility. 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
	[温忠麟, 叶宝娟. (2014). 有调节的中介模型检验方法: 竞争还是替补? 心理学报, 46(5), 714-726.]
[40]	Xiong, W., Wang, C., & Ma, L. (2023). Partner or subordinate? Sequential risky decision-making behaviors under human- machine 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
	[徐四华, 方卓, 饶恒毅. (2013). 真实和虚拟金钱奖赏影响风险决策行为. 心理学报, 45(8), 874-886.]
[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. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21820-0 pmid: 29487303
[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.
	[岳灵紫, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2018). 风险决策中的领域特异性. 心理科学进展, 26(5), 928-938.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00928
[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.
	[赵闪. (2004). 大学生感觉寻求及其与心理健康关系的研究 (硕士学位论文). 东北师范大学, 长春.]

预测变量	方程1 (因变量: 平均打气次数)			方程2 (因变量: 知觉到的主体责任)			方程3 (因变量: 平均打气次数)
预测变量	β	SE	t	β	SE	t	β	SE	t
常数		2.37	2.93^**		0.38	8.98^***		2.78	1.09
年龄	−0.002	0.09	−0.03	0.03	0.01	0.55	−0.01	0.09	−0.13
性别	−0.16	0.50	−2.44^*	−0.12	0.08	−2.38^*	−0.13	0.50	−2.00^*
感觉寻求	−0.01	0.03	−0.12	−0.03	0.004	−0.62	<0.001	0.03	−0.01
合作对象	0.42	0.43	6.52^***	0.69	0.07	13.32^***	0.26	0.59	3.00^**
知觉到的主体责任							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

预测变量	方程1 (因变量: 平均打气次数)			方程2 (因变量: 知觉到的主体责任)			方程3 (因变量: 平均打气次数)
预测变量	β	SE	t	β	SE	t	β	SE	t
常数		2.37	2.93^**		0.38	8.98^***		2.78	1.09
年龄	−0.002	0.09	−0.03	0.03	0.01	0.55	−0.01	0.09	−0.13
性别	−0.16	0.50	−2.44^*	−0.12	0.08	−2.38^*	−0.13	0.50	−2.00^*
感觉寻求	−0.01	0.03	−0.12	−0.03	0.004	−0.62	<0.001	0.03	−0.01
合作对象	0.42	0.43	6.52^***	0.69	0.07	13.32^***	0.26	0.59	3.00^**
知觉到的主体责任							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

预测变量	方程1 (因变量: 冒险水平)			方程2 (因变量: 知觉到主体责任)			方程3 (因变量: 冒险水平)
预测变量	β	SE	t	β	SE	t	β	SE	t
常数	0.003	0.07	0.04	−0.01	0.07	−0.15	−0.03	0.07	−0.44
年龄	−0.01	0.07	−0.12	0.01	0.07	0.20	−0.01	0.06	−0.17
性别	−0.10	0.07	−1.47	−0.07	0.07	−1.05	−0.08	0.07	−1.21
感觉寻求	0.06	0.07	0.84	−0.01	0.07	−0.15	0.07	0.06	0.03
积极情绪	0.14	0.07	1.86	0.14	0.07	1.87	0.10	0.07	1.36
消极情绪	−0.09	0.07	−1.22	−0.05	0.07	−0.70	−0.09	0.07	−1.31
合作对象	0.34	0.07	5.05^***	0.22	0.07	3.28^**	0.30	0.07	4.50^***
结果反馈	−0.02	0.08	−0.20	0.33	0.08	4.36^***	−0.09	0.08	−1.20
知觉到的主体责任							0.25	0.07	3.57^***
结果反馈×合作对象	0.05	0.07	0.79	−0.18	0.07	−2.61^**	0.06	0.07	0.94
结果反馈×知觉到的主体责任							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

预测变量	方程1 (因变量: 冒险水平)			方程2 (因变量: 知觉到主体责任)			方程3 (因变量: 冒险水平)
预测变量	β	SE	t	β	SE	t	β	SE	t
常数	0.003	0.07	0.04	−0.01	0.07	−0.15	−0.03	0.07	−0.44
年龄	−0.01	0.07	−0.12	0.01	0.07	0.20	−0.01	0.06	−0.17
性别	−0.10	0.07	−1.47	−0.07	0.07	−1.05	−0.08	0.07	−1.21
感觉寻求	0.06	0.07	0.84	−0.01	0.07	−0.15	0.07	0.06	0.03
积极情绪	0.14	0.07	1.86	0.14	0.07	1.87	0.10	0.07	1.36
消极情绪	−0.09	0.07	−1.22	−0.05	0.07	−0.70	−0.09	0.07	−1.31
合作对象	0.34	0.07	5.05^***	0.22	0.07	3.28^**	0.30	0.07	4.50^***
结果反馈	−0.02	0.08	−0.20	0.33	0.08	4.36^***	−0.09	0.08	−1.20
知觉到的主体责任							0.25	0.07	3.57^***
结果反馈×合作对象	0.05	0.07	0.79	−0.18	0.07	−2.61^**	0.06	0.07	0.94
结果反馈×知觉到的主体责任							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

中介变量	结果反馈	effect	BootSE	BootCI下限	BootCI上限
知觉到的主体责任	成功(0)	0.0821	0.0354	0.0246	0.1622
知觉到的主体责任	失败(1)	0.0094	0.0233	−0.0329	0.0607