New bionic technologies and robots are becoming increasingly common in workspaces and private spheres. It is thus crucial to understand concerns regarding their use in social and legal terms and the qualities they should possess to be accepted as ‘co-workers’. Previous research in these areas used the Stereotype Content Model to investigate, for example, attributions of Warmth and Competence towards people who use bionic prostheses, cyborgs, and robots. In the present study, we propose to differentiate the Warmth dimension into the dimensions of Sociability and Morality to gain deeper insight into how people with or without bionic prostheses are perceived. In addition, we extend our research to the perception of robots. Since legal aspects need to be considered if robots are expected to be ‘co-workers’, for the first time, we also evaluated current perceptions of robots in terms of legal aspects. We conducted two studies: In Study 1, participants rated visual stimuli of individuals with or without disabilities and low- or high-tech prostheses, and robots of different levels of Anthropomorphism in terms of perceived Competence, Sociability, and Morality. In Study 2, participants rated robots of different levels of Anthropomorphism in terms of perceived Competence, Sociability, and Morality, and additionally, Legal Personality, and Decision-Making Authority. We also controlled for participants’ personality. Results showed that attributions of Competence and Morality varied as a function of the technical sophistication of the prostheses. For robots, Competence attributions were negatively related to Anthropomorphism. Perception of Sociability, Morality, Legal Personality, and Decision-Making Authority varied as functions of Anthropomorphism. Overall, this study contributes to technological design, which aims to ensure high acceptance and minimal undesirable side effects, both with regard to the application of bionic instruments and robotics. Additionally, first insights into whether more anthropomorphized robots will need to be considered differently in terms of legal practice are given.

With increased digitalization and new technologies, societies are expected to no longer only include human actors, but artificial actors as well. Such a future of societies raises new questions concerning the coexistence, tasks and responsibilities of different actors. Manifold disciplines are involved in the creation of these future societies. This requires a common understanding of responsibility, and of definitions of actors in Hybrid Societies. This review aims at clarifying aforementioned terms from a legal and psychological perspective. Building from this common ground, we identified seven capacities in total which need to be met by actors in societies to be considered fully responsible, in both a legal and moral sense. From a legal perspective, actors need to be autonomous, have capacity to act, legal capacity, and the ability to be held liable. From a psychological perspective, actors need to possess moral agency and can be trusted. Both disciplines agree that explainability is a pivotal capacity to be considered fully responsible. As of now, human beings are the only actors who can, with regard to these capacities, be considered morally and legally responsible. It is unclear whether and to which extent artificial entities will have these capacities, and subsequently, whether they can be responsible in the same sense as human beings are. However, on the basis of the conceptual clarification, further steps can now be taken to develop a concept of responsibility in Hybrid Societies.

No abstract

No abstract

The possibilities and reach of social networks are increasing, the designs are becoming more diverse, and the ideas more visionary. Most recently, the former company “Facebook” announced the creation of a metaverse. With these technical possibilities, however, the danger of fraudsters is also growing. Using social bots, consumers are increasingly influenced on such platforms and business transactions are brought about through communication, i.e. conversational commerce. Minors or the elderly are particularly susceptible. This technical development is accompanied by a legal one: it is permitted by the Digital Services Directive and the Sale of Goods Directive to demand the provision of data as consideration for the sale of digital products. This raises legal problems at the level of the law of obligations and data protection law, whose regulations are intended to protect the aforementioned groups of individuals. This protection becomes even more important the more manipulative consumers are influenced by communicative bots. We show that there is a lack of knowledge about what objective data value can have in business transactions. Sufficient transparency of an objective data value can maintain legal protection, especially of vulnerable groups, and ensure the purpose of the laws.