The impact of different ethical frameworks underlying a robot’s advice on charitable donations
This research paper examines how different ethical frameworks underlying a robot's advice affect people's charitable donation behavior. In a laboratory experiment, participants received moral advice from a robot grounded in either deontological ethics or Confucian role ethics to encourage donating lottery tickets to a student charity event. The study found that advice grounded in Confucian role ethics was significantly more effective in inducing donations than deontological advice.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Human-robot interaction researchers and AI developers interested in the ethical framing of robot communication and persuasion strategies.
What the document contains
The document investigates how social robots can verbally persuade humans to engage in prosocial behavior such as charitable donations by framing moral advice using deontological ethics versus Confucian role ethics. It details experimental methodologies involving human participants interacting with a physical robot and evaluating their donation decisions.
The text does not provide regulatory compliance guidelines, legal enforcement mechanisms, or software implementation code for commercial deployment.
- A laboratory experiment explored whether robots can persuade people to participate in charitable giving using different ethical theories.
- Advice grounded in Confucian role ethics was found to be more effective in inducing charitable donations than advice grounded in deontological ethics.
- A negative relationship was observed between participants' sense of closeness with other students and their donation behavior when receiving deontological advice.
- The study highlights the potential benefits of integrating non-Western philosophical traditions like Confucian role ethics into human-robot interaction design.
· I. Introduction · II. Methods · III. Data Analysis and Results · IV. General Discussion · V. Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
screening score · 2026-10-23