Human or Robot? Consumer Responses to Radical Cognitive Enhancement Products

Castelo, Noah; Schmitt, Bernd H.; Sárváry, Miklós

doi:10.1086/703462

Cited by 73 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Enhancement to an "optimal" human level was judged practically identically to alleviation, and differences were clearly driven by the superhuman condition in all studies. This is in line with previous studies (Sahakian & Morein-Zamir, 2011;Wolpe, 2002;Pew Research Center, 2016;Castelo et al, 2019;Daniels, 2000;Greely et al, 2008;Hyman, 2011;Scheske & Schnall, 2012) which have also concluded that treatment and enhancement are viewed differently. This effect replicated across all our DVs (moral approval, sense of fairness and dehumanization) and all our studies.…”

Section: Non-human Superhumans 35supporting

confidence: 91%

“…Inspired by previous links between a binding foundation orientation, sexual disgust and disapproval of related biotechnologies, we tested whether explicitly invasive enhancement (body envelope violation) like surgery affected judgment in Studies 3 (nanorobotic pills vs. surgery) and 4 (pharmacological pills vs. surgery). Here we found that only traditional pharmacological (normal pills) intervention differed from novel methods in that they were perceived as less unfair and less dehumanizing (similar to Castelo et al,, 2019). Given the convergent effect of familiarity on fairness in Study 5, it seems possible that the greater fairness of conventional modes of administration is due in part to their greater familiarity, and strictly to particularities of the method of enhancement (such as whether it constitutes a body envelope violation; see also Scheske & Schnall, 2012;Landy et al, 2017).…”

Section: Non-human Superhumans 35mentioning

confidence: 64%

“…However, people may perceive a trade-off when it comes to enhancement. Castelo et al (2019) found that people rated a hypothetical user of cognitive enhancement as more "robot-like" if the user enhanced their cognitive capacities above the normal human baseline than if they were restoring capacities lost due to illness. That is, it NON-HUMAN SUPERHUMANS 10 seems that an increase in a person's cognitive capacities may come at the cost of others perceiving that person as having lost some of their emotional capacities.…”

Section: Dehumanization Of Technology Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Treatments Approved, Boosts Eschewed: Moral Limits of Neurotechnological Enhancement

Koverola¹,

Kunnari²,

Drosinou³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Through five experimental studies we measured moral reactions to brain implants. We used three different measurements: 1) moral approval, or the general acceptance of brain-enhancing implants and people getting such implants, 2) perceived unfairness of the enhancement and 3) dehumanization of persons using brain implants. In our vignettes, the enhancement was on one of three levels: a) it alleviated an ailment, b) it gave optimal human level performance or c) it gave superhuman performance. Studies 1 to 4 were about memory enhancement, Study 5A about en-hancing general intelligence and Study 5B about enhancing emotional stability.We successfully showed that moral approval, sense of fairness and dehumanization are rele-vant in contexts where moral implications of new technologies are being evaluated and that while people generally approve of curing ailments, they are more cautious of unfamiliar levels of en-hancement. Furthermore, we linked the tendency to condemn transhumanist technologies to fac-tors associated with disgust sensitivity (the binding orientation of the Moral Foundations Theory and sexual disgust) and found that science fiction hobbyism is linked to approval of brain im-plants. We also successfully ruled out possible idiosyncrasies associated with our stimulus materi-als and eliminated multiple alternative explanations common in the study of moral cognition

show abstract

Section: Non-human Superhumans 35supporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Non-human Superhumans 35mentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Dehumanization Of Technology Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Treatments Approved, Boosts Eschewed: Moral Limits of Neurotechnological Enhancement

Koverola¹,

Kunnari²,

Drosinou³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Antecedents to dehumanization include portraying a person sexually (Gray et al 2011), evaluating out-group members (Leyens et al 2001), using metaphors linking humans to machines (Bastian et al 2012) and technology enhancements on human bodies (Costelo, Schmitt, and Sarvary 2019). The consequences of dehumanization can be negative, including reduced interest in interacting with (Kozak, Marsh, and Wegner 2006) or being willing to help a dehumanized person (Castelo et al 2019). We extend this literature by proposing a new antecedent to dehumanization -AI.…”

Section: Ai and Dehumanizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numbers, Not Lives: AI Dehumanization Undermines COVID-19 Preventive Intentions

Lü¹,

Rajagopal²

2022

Journal of the Association for Consumer Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across four studies, we document a novel and unexpected effect such that COVID-19 data gathered by AI (vs. humans) reduces consumers' intentions to take preventive measures. This effect is driven by greater perceived dehumanization, such that consumers view AI-generated data as numbers, rather than as human lives. We find that this effect is mitigated when humanness is primed, is moderated by AI type (narrow AI leads to greater dehumanization than general AI), and is attenuated by task type (perceived vaccine effectiveness is similar for AI and humans when the vaccine development process highlights AI-advantageous attributes).

show abstract

“…In particular, we propose that for subjective (i.e., personalized and difficult to quantify) decisions, humanized algorithms will be preferred over seemingly mechanistic algorithms. For example, consumers prefer humans for subjective tasks but AI for objective tasks (Castelo et al 2019a;Newman et al 2020); whether an AIVA is adopted more when labeled as AI or human could depend on the task it is asked to perform (Castelo et al 2019b).…”

Section: Consumer Adoption Of Ai-powered Voice Assistantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer decisions with artificially intelligent voice assistants

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumers are widely adopting Artificially Intelligent Voice Assistants (AIVAs). AIVAs now handle many different everyday tasks and are also increasingly assisting consumers with purchasing decisions, making AIVAs a rich topic for marketing researchers. We develop a series of propositions regarding how consumer decision-making processes may change when moved from traditional online purchase environments to AI-powered voicebased dialogs, in the hopes of encouraging further academic thinking and research in this rapidly developing, high impact area of consumer-firm interaction. We also provide suggestions for marketing managers and policymakers on points to pay attention to when they respond to the proposed effects of AIVAs on consumer decisions. Keywords Artificial intelligence. Voice assistants. Consumer decision-making. Consumer dialogs. Digital marketing. Consumer models Artificially Intelligent interactive Voice Assistants (AIVAs), also known as Voice-Activated Personal Assistants or Smart-Home Personal Assistants, have become widely adopted by consumers as aids in a variety of everyday tasks. AIVAs currently handle over one billion tasks per month, with the majority of uses being simple information requests ("Cortana, what is the weather today?") or household commands ("Ok Google, turn on the lights.").

show abstract

Human or Robot? Consumer Responses to Radical Cognitive Enhancement Products

Cited by 73 publications

References 37 publications

Treatments Approved, Boosts Eschewed: Moral Limits of Neurotechnological Enhancement

Treatments Approved, Boosts Eschewed: Moral Limits of Neurotechnological Enhancement

Numbers, Not Lives: AI Dehumanization Undermines COVID-19 Preventive Intentions

Consumer decisions with artificially intelligent voice assistants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About