Heuristic thinking and altruism toward machines in people impacted by COVID-19.
Computer Science
Human-Computer Interaction
Sociology
Journal
iScience
ISSN: 2589-0042
Titre abrégé: iScience
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101724038
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Mar 2021
19 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
07
12
2020
revised:
07
02
2021
accepted:
19
02
2021
pubmed:
2
3
2021
medline:
2
3
2021
entrez:
1
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Autonomous machines are poised to become pervasive, but most treat machines differently: we are willing to violate social norms and less likely to display altruism toward machines. Here, we report an unexpected effect that those impacted by COVID-19-as measured by a post-traumatic stress disorder scale-show a sharp reduction in this difference. Participants engaged in the dictator game with humans and machines and, consistent with prior research on disasters, those impacted by COVID-19 displayed more altruism to other humans. Unexpectedly, participants impacted by COVID-19 displayed equal altruism toward human and machine partners. A mediation analysis suggests that altruism toward machines was explained by an increase in heuristic thinking-reinforcing prior theory that heuristic thinking encourages people to treat machines like people-and faith in technology-perhaps reflecting long-term consequences on how we act with machines. These findings give insight, but also raise concerns, for the design of technology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33644708
doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102228
pii: S2589-0042(21)00196-6
pmc: PMC7901281
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
102228Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Authors declare no competing interests.
Références
Behav Res Methods. 2008 Aug;40(3):879-91
pubmed: 18697684
Hum Factors. 2004 Spring;46(1):50-80
pubmed: 15151155
Neuron. 2002 Jul 18;35(2):395-405
pubmed: 12160756
PLoS One. 2014 May 06;9(5):e96654
pubmed: 24801381
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Feb 26;116(9):3482-3487
pubmed: 30808742
Neuroimage. 2002 Jul;16(3 Pt 1):814-21
pubmed: 12169265
Front Psychol. 2017 May 22;8:724
pubmed: 28588520
Cognition. 2017 Oct;167:58-65
pubmed: 28007293
Neurosci Lett. 2009 May 1;454(3):176-81
pubmed: 19429079
Science. 2003 Jun 13;300(5626):1755-8
pubmed: 12805551
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Sep 25;98(20):11832-5
pubmed: 11562505
Psychol Bull. 2014 Nov;140(6):1608-47
pubmed: 25347133
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 7;12(6):e0176885
pubmed: 28591148
Nat Commun. 2014 Apr 22;5:3677
pubmed: 24751464
Science. 2013 Sep 13;341(6151):1235367
pubmed: 24031020
Ergonomics. 2012;55(9):1059-72
pubmed: 22799560
Mem Cognit. 2011 Oct;39(7):1275-89
pubmed: 21541821
Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 11;10(1):14959
pubmed: 32917943
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2014 Jan;106(1):73-88
pubmed: 24079297
Nature. 2015 Feb 5;518(7537):20-3
pubmed: 25652978
Science. 2014 Oct 10;346(6206):178-9
pubmed: 25301612
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 11;14(11):e0224758
pubmed: 31710610
Psychol Sci. 2016 Sep;27(9):1192-206
pubmed: 27422875
PLoS One. 2008 Jul 09;3(7):e2597
pubmed: 18612463
Nat Commun. 2019 Sep 26;10(1):4389
pubmed: 31558713
Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Aug;17(8):413-25
pubmed: 23856025
Behav Res Ther. 2005 May;43(5):585-94
pubmed: 15865914
N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383(6):510-512
pubmed: 32283003