The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of One
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Robots and other artificial intelligence (AI) systems are widely perceived as moral agents responsible for their actions. As AI proliferates, these perceptions may become entangled via the moral spillover of attitudes towards one AI to attitudes towards other AIs. We tested how the seemingly harmful and immoral actions of an AI or human agent spill over to attitudes towards other AIs or humans in two preregistered experiments. In Study 1 (N = 720), we established the moral spillover effect in human-AI interaction by showing that immoral actions increased attributions of negative moral agency (i.e., acting immorally) and decreased attributions of positive moral agency (i.e., acting morally) and moral patiency (i.e., deserving moral concern) to both the agent (a chatbot or human assistant) and the group to which they belong (all chatbot or human assistants). There was no significant difference in the spillover effects between the AI and human contexts. In Study 2 (N = 684), we tested whether spillover persisted when the agent was individuated with a name and described as an AI or human, rather than specifically as a chatbot or personal assistant. We found that spillover persisted in the AI context but not in the human context, possibly because AIs were perceived as more homogeneous due to their outgroup status relative to humans. This asymmetry suggests a double standard whereby AIs are judged more harshly than humans when one agent morally transgresses. With the proliferation of diverse, autonomous AI systems, HCI research and design should account for the fact that experiences with one AI could easily generalize to perceptions of all AIs and negative HCI outcomes, such as reduced trust.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Dec 2024.
Builds on
5 of 69 references.
References · 5
- 2021Human-AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision-Making: "Automation Bias" and "Selective Adherence" to Algorithmic Advicecited by 22
- 2021The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Reviewcited by 10
- 2021Guilty Artificial Mindscited by 9
- 2020Collecting the Public Perception of AI and Robot Rightscited by 7
- 2023Blaming Humans and Machines: What Shapes People's Reactions to Algorithmic Harmcited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 2.
6 papers.
- 2025HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistantscited by 10
- 2025Digital Companionship: Overlapping Uses of AI Companions and AI Assistantscited by 7
- 2025Public Opinion and The Rise of Digital Minds: Perceived Risk, Trust, and Regulation Supportcited by 3
- 2025Mental Models of Autonomy and Sentience Shape Reactions to AIcited by 3
- 2026Method, Mind, and Morality: How People Make Sense of Artificial Intelligencecited by 0
- 2026CompanionSim: Synthetic Data for Evaluating Anthropomorphism in Human-AI Relationshipscited by 0
- 2026CompanionSim: Synthetic Data for Evaluating Anthropomorphism in Human-AI Relationships31 Aug 2026
- 2026Method, Mind, and Morality: How People Make Sense of Artificial Intelligence25 Aug 2026
- 2025Mental Models of Autonomy and Sentience Shape Reactions to AI9 Dec 2025
- 2025Digital Companionship: Overlapping Uses of AI Companions and AI Assistants16 Sep 2025
- 2025HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistants10 Sep 2025
- 2025Public Opinion and The Rise of Digital Minds: Perceived Risk, Trust, and Regulation Support30 Apr 2025