Lexical Anthropomorphization Influences on Moral Judgments of AI Bad Behavior

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25814v1
• Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:22:16 GMT
• Title: Lexical Anthropomorphization Influences on Moral Judgments of AI Bad Behavior
• Abstract summary: We tested whether lexicalmorphism primes shape judgments of AI moral character, behavior morality, and behavioral responsibility.<n>Results indicate humanizing language and design cues have little influence on moral judgments of misbehaving AI.<n>Prime drift, horn effects, and egoistic value orientations emerged as potentially important predictors of AI moral judgments.
• Score: 3.8870795921263723
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Anthropomorphic language describing artificial intelligence (AI) is widespread in media, policy, and everyday discourse; so too are discussions of AI bad behavior, from hallucinations to inappropriate comments. How does humanizing language about AI shape moral judgments when AI behaves badly? Across four experiments (total N = 1,020), we tested whether lexical anthropomorphism (LA) primes shape judgments of AI moral character, behavior morality, and behavioral responsibility. Studies 1-3 tested interactions between anthropomorphic language and humanizing design cues (icons, names, self-referencing) in the context of amoral errors. Study 4 extended this to genuinely immoral AI behavior across seven moral-violation types. Results indicate humanizing language and design cues have little influence on moral judgments of misbehaving AI. Where effects emerged, high-anthropomorphic primes elevated perceptions of an AI's capacity for dishonesty. The type of moral violation observed was the strongest predictor of moral judgments, with harm and degradation violations producing the broadest negative character assessments. Prime drift, horn effects, and egoistic value orientations emerged as potentially important predictors of AI moral judgments.

Related papers

• Warning labels shift perceptions of sycophantic AI, but not its influence [63.79516339973759]
  We test whether warning labels mitigate sycophancy's influence.<n>Labeling the system as sycophantic (...may agree with you and validate you even when you are wrong...'') does shift users' perceptions.<n>But it does not reliably reduce sycophancy's influence on users' self-perceived rightness or their willingness to repair the conflict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T11:01:45Z)
• Can Valence Reflect Morality in Natural Language? A Preliminary Annotation Study [0.3372751145910977]
  Present implementations of artificial intelligence (AI) ethics do not adequately take feelings, or affect, into account.<n>This study investigates the possibility of AI behaviour that mirrors human ethical conduct, where feelings play a role in the actions, judgements or statements one makes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T08:58:56Z)
• Can AI be a moral victim? The role of moral patiency and ownership perceptions in ethical judgments of using AI-generated content [0.0]
  generative AI raises ethical concerns about authorship and plagiarism.<n>This study examines how people judge the reuse of AI-generated content, focusing on moral patiency and ownership perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:40:30Z)
• Synthetic Socratic Debates: Examining Persona Effects on Moral Decision and Persuasion Dynamics [22.87895625823716]
  We present the first large-scale study of multi-dimensional persona effects in AI-AI debates over real-world moral dilemmas.<n>Our results show that personas affect initial moral stances and debate outcomes, with political ideology and personality traits exerting the strongest influence.<n>Persuasive success varies across traits, with liberal and open personalities reaching higher consensus and win rates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T23:14:49Z)
• A theory of appropriateness with applications to generative artificial intelligence [56.23261221948216]
  We need to understand how appropriateness guides human decision making in order to properly evaluate AI decision making and improve it.<n>This paper presents a theory of appropriateness: how it functions in human society, how it may be implemented in the brain, and what it means for responsible deployment of generative AI technology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-26T00:54:03Z)
• The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of One [0.0]
  As AI proliferates, perceptions may become entangled via the moral spillover of attitudes towards one AI to attitudes towards other AIs.<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-08T19:26:52Z)
• Human Bias in the Face of AI: Examining Human Judgment Against Text Labeled as AI Generated [48.70176791365903]
  This study explores how bias shapes the perception of AI versus human generated content.<n>We investigated how human raters respond to labeled and unlabeled content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T04:31:45Z)
• Decoding moral judgement from text: a pilot study [0.0]
  Moral judgement is a complex human reaction that engages cognitive and emotional dimensions. We explore the feasibility of moral judgement decoding from text stimuli with passive brain-computer interfaces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T20:31:59Z)
• Attributions toward Artificial Agents in a modified Moral Turing Test [0.6284264304179837]
  We ask people to distinguish real human moral evaluations from those made by a popular advanced AI language model: GPT-4. A representative sample of 299 U.S. adults rated the AI's moral reasoning as superior in quality to humans' along almost all dimensions. The emergence of language models capable of producing moral responses perceived as superior in quality to humans' raises concerns that people may uncritically accept potentially harmful moral guidance from AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T13:00:47Z)
• Can Machines Imitate Humans? Integrative Turing-like tests for Language and Vision Demonstrate a Narrowing Gap [56.611702960809644]
  We benchmark AI's ability to imitate humans in three language tasks and three vision tasks.<n>Next, we conducted 72,191 Turing-like tests with 1,916 human judges and 10 AI judges.<n>Imitation ability showed minimal correlation with conventional AI performance metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-23T16:16:52Z)
• When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral Judgment [96.77970239683475]
  AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions. A central challenge for AI safety is capturing the flexibility of the human moral mind. We present a novel challenge set consisting of rule-breaking question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-04T09:04:27Z)
• Aligning AI With Shared Human Values [85.2824609130584]
  We introduce the ETHICS dataset, a new benchmark that spans concepts in justice, well-being, duties, virtues, and commonsense morality. We find that current language models have a promising but incomplete ability to predict basic human ethical judgements. Our work shows that progress can be made on machine ethics today, and it provides a steppingstone toward AI that is aligned with human values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-05T17:59:16Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.