iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://unpaywall.org/10.1007/S12369-022-00864-3
Human Dishonesty in the Presence of a Robot: The Effects of Situation Awareness | International Journal of Social Robotics Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Human Dishonesty in the Presence of a Robot: The Effects of Situation Awareness

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cheating has been extensively studied in Psychology and Economics, showing a variety of factors that can increase or decrease this behavior. Considering future human–robot interactions, where robots are being thought to be integrated in a variety of contexts, it is important to test which characteristics robots can have to prevent people from cheating. In this study (N = 123), we investigated whether people will cheat if an autonomous robot showed situationally aware behaviors towards the participant’s performance (i.e., intervened when they cheated). Our results showed that being in the presence of an aware robot is better at decreasing cheating behavior than being alone, and that there are no differences in cheating behavior between a non-aware robot or being alone. This study brings implications for the development of autonomous robots in roles where cheating might happen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability and Materials

The study materials and database of this study are available in an OSF Project (https://osf.io/zbym4/?view_only=dc72356ad00e4e7d9e44f435e9b844dd).

Notes

  1. https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/pepper.

References

  1. Murphy RR (2004) Human–robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C (Appl Rev) 34(2):138–153. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2004.826267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen TL, Ciocarlie M, Cousins S, Grice PM, Hawkins K, Hsiao K, Kemp CC, King C, Lazewatsky DA, Leeper AE, Nguyen H, Paepcke A, Pantofaru C, Smart WD, Takayama L (2013) Robots for humanity: using assistive robotics to empower people with disabilities. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 20(1):30–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2229950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Leite I, Pereira A, Mascarenhas S, Martinho C, Prada R, Paiva A (2013) The influence of empathy in human–robot relations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 71(3):250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R, Billard A (2005) Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? Univ Access Inf Soc 4(2):105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-005-0116-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wada K, Shibata T (2009) Social effects of robot therapy in a care house—change of social network of the residents for one year. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Inf 13(4):386–392. https://doi.org/10.20965/jaciii.2009.p0386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D (2008) The dishonesty of honest people: a theory of self-concept maintenance. J Mark Res 45(6):633–644. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mead NL, Baumeister RF, Gino F, Schweitzer ME, Ariely D (2009) Too tired to tell the truth: self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. J Exp Soc Psychol 45(3):594–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shalvi S, Eldar O, Bereby-Meyer Y (2012) Honesty requires time (and lack of justifications). Psychol Sci 23(10):1264–1270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612443835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Köbis NC, Verschuere B, Bereby-Meyer Y, Rand D, Shalvi S (2019) Intuitive honesty versus dishonesty: meta-analytic evidence. Perspect Psychol Sci 14(5):778–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619851778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhong CB, Bohns VK, Gino F (2010) Good lamps are the best police: darkness increases dishonesty and self-interested behavior. Psychol Sci 21(3):311–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609360754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gino F, Pierce L (2009) The abundance effect: unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 109(2):142–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gino F, Ayal S, Ariely D (2009) Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: the effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychol Sci 20(3):393–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gino F, Norton MI, Ariely D (2010) The counterfeit self: the deceptive costs of faking it. Psychol Sci 21(5):712–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610366545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Conrads J, Ellenberger M, Irlenbusch B, Ohms EN, Rilke RM, Walkowitz G (2017) Team goal incentives and individual lying behavior (Vol. 2017, No. WP 17/02). WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management. https://d-nb.info/1135786968/34

  15. Dreber A, Johannesson M (2008) Gender differences in deception. Econ Lett 99(1):197–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.06.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Friesen L, Gangadharan L (2012) Individual level evidence of dishonesty and the gender effect. Econ Lett 117(3):624–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gerlach P, Teodorescu K, Hertwig R (2019) The truth about lies: a meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychol Bull 145(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Houser D, Vetter S, Winter J (2012) Fairness and cheating. Eur Econ Rev 56(8):1645–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Aoki K, Akai K, Onoshiro K (2010). Deception and confession: experimental evidence from a deception game in Japan (No. 786). ISER discussion paper. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/92748

  20. Childs J (2012) Gender differences in lying. Econ Lett 114(2):147–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Childs J (2013) Personal characteristics and lying: an experimental investigation. Econ Lett 121(3):425–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.09.005

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Ezquerra L, Kolev GI, Rodriguez-Lara I (2018) Gender differences in cheating: loss vs. gain framing. Econ Lett 163:46–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.11.016

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Gylfason HF, Arnardottir AA, Kristinsson K (2013) More on gender differences in lying. Econ Lett 119(1):94–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.01.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ashton MC, Lee K (2007) Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 11(2):150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hilbig BE, Zettler I (2015) When the cat’s away, some mice will play: a basic trait account of dishonest behavior. J Res Pers 57:72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kleinlogel EP, Dietz J, Antonakis J (2018) Lucky, competent, or just a cheat? Interactive effects of honesty–humility and moral cues on cheating behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 44(2):158–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217733071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pfattheicher S, Schindler S, Nockur L (2019) On the impact of honesty–humility and a cue of being watched on cheating behavior. J Econ Psychol 71:159–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Petisca S, Esteves F, Paiva A (2019) Cheating with robots: how at ease do they make us feel? In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2102–2107. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS40897.2019.8967790

  29. Maggi G, Dell’Aquila E, Cucciniello I, Rossi S (2020) “Don’t Get Distracted!’’: the role of social robots’ interaction style on users’ cognitive performance, acceptance, and non-compliant behavior. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00702-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hoffmann L, Krämer NC, Lam-Chi A, Kopp S (2009) Media equation revisited: do users show polite reactions towards an embodied agent? In: International workshop on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, pp 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04380-2_19

  31. Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gambino A, Fox J, Ratan RA (2020) Building a stronger CASA: extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Hum-Mach Commun 1(1):71–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rosenthal-von der Pütten AM, Krämer NC, Hoffmann L, Sobieraj S, Eimler SC (2013) An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot. Int J Soc Robot 5(1):17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0173-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Horstmann AC, Bock N, Linhuber E, Szczuka JM, Straßmann C, Krämer NC (2018) Do a robot’s social skills and its objection discourage interactants from switching the robot off? PLoS ONE 13(7):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Midden C, Ham J (2012) The illusion of agency: the influence of the agency of an artificial agent on its persuasive power. In: International conference on persuasive technology. Springer, pp 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31037-9_8

  36. Hashemian M, Paiva A, Mascarenhas S, Santos PA, Prada R (2019) The power to persuade: a study of social power in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 28th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956298

  37. Paradeda RB, Martinho C, Paiva A (2020) Persuasion strategies using a social robot in an interactive storytelling scenario. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on human–agent interaction (HAI), pp 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1145/3406499.3415084

  38. Bainbridge WA, Hart JW, Kim ES, Scassellati B (2011) The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int J Soc Robot 3(1):41–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0082-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Litoiu A, Ullman D, Kim J, Scassellati B (2015) Evidence that robots trigger a cheating detector in humans. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696456

  40. Sandoval EB, Brandstetter J, Bartneck C (2016) Can a robot bribe a human? The measurement of the negative side of reciprocity in human robot interaction. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451742

  41. Ullman D, Leite L, Phillips J, Kim-Cohen J, Scassellati B (2014) Smart human, smarter robot: how cheating affects perceptions of social agency. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, vol 36, no 36. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2jh800n1

  42. Petisca S, Paiva A, Esteves F (2020) Perceptions of people’s dishonesty towards robots. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, Cham, pp 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62056-1_12

  43. Hoffman G, Forlizzi J, Ayal S, Steinfeld A, Antanitis J, Hochman G, Hochendoner E, Finkenaur J (2015) Robot presence and human honesty: experimental evidence. In: 2015 10th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696487

  44. Forlizzi J, Saensuksopa T, Salaets N, Shomin M, Mericli T, Hoffman G (2016) Let’s be honest: a controlled field study of ethical behavior in the presence of a robot. In: 2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 769–774. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745206

  45. Petisca S, Paiva A, Esteves F (2020). The effect of a robotic agent on dishonest behavior. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on intelligent virtual agents, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383652.3423953

  46. Maggi G, Dell’Aquila E, Cucciniello I, Rossi S (2020) Cheating with a socially assistive robot? A matter of personality. In: Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 352–354. https://doi.org/10.1145/3371382.3378334

  47. Pfattheicher S, Keller J (2015) The watching eyes phenomenon: the role of a sense of being seen and public self-awareness. Eur J Soc Psychol 45(5):560–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pfattheicher S, Strauch C, Diefenbacher S, Schnuerch R (2018) A field study on watching eyes and hand hygiene compliance in a public restroom. J Appl Soc Psychol 48(4):188–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ernest-Jones M, Nettle D, Bateson M (2011) Effects of eye images on everyday cooperative behavior: a field experiment. Evol Hum Behav 32(3):172–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Markiewicz Ł, Czupryna M (2020) Cheating: one common morality for gains and losses but two components of morality itself. J Behav Decis Mak 33(2):166–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Welsh DT, Ordóñez LD (2014) Conscience without cognition: the effects of subconscious priming on ethical behavior. Acad Manag J 57(3):723–742. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Chugh D, Bazerman MH, Banaji MR (2005) Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. In: Moore DA, Cain DM, Loewenstein G, Bazerman MH (eds) Conflicts of interest: challenges and solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 74–95

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Chugh D, Kern MC (2016) A dynamic and cyclical model of bounded ethicality. Res Organ Behav 36:85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bersoff DM (1999) Why good people sometimes do bad things: motivated reasoning and unethical behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25(1):28–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025001003

  55. Jiang T (2012) The mind game: invisible cheating and inferable intentions (discussion paper, no. 309). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, LICOS Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2051476

  56. Biocca F, Harms C (2003) Guide to the networked minds social presence inventory v. 1.2 Unpublished manuscript. Department of Telecommunication, Michigan State University. http://cogprints.org/6743/

  57. Govern JM, Marsch LA (2001) Development and validation of the situational self-awareness scale. Conscious Cogn 10(3):366–378. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2001.0506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Diener E, Wallbom M (1976) Effects of self-awareness on antinormative behavior. J Res Pers 10(1):107–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(76)90088-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the help and support of Sarah Gillet during the studies and the help of Sandra Oristrell with the game task.

Funding

This work was supported by the Social European Fund (FSE) and the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), Sofia Petisca acknowledges an FCT Grant (Ref.SFRH/BD/118013/2016).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Social Research and Intervention Lisbon University Institute (ISCTE) and INESC-ID, Lisbon, Portugal

    Sofia Petisca

  2. Division of Robotics, Perception and Learning, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Iolanda Leite

  3. Instituto Superior Tecnico (IST) and INESC-ID, Lisbon, Portugal

    Ana Paiva

  4. Department of Psychology and Social Work, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden

    Francisco Esteves

  5. UCP, Lisbon, Portugal

    Francisco Esteves

Authors
  1. Sofia Petisca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iolanda Leite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Paiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francisco Esteves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sofia Petisca.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

According to the national regulations in the country where these experiments were conducted, we were exempt from ethical approval, but the ethical guidelines of Helsinki convention were followed.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petisca, S., Leite, I., Paiva, A. et al. Human Dishonesty in the Presence of a Robot: The Effects of Situation Awareness. Int J of Soc Robotics 14, 1211–1222 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00864-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00864-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation