对人工智能与人类主体在道德困境中行为的判断差异：性别与焦虑的调节作用*

钟晓波; 刘洁; 崔芳

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260502

PDF(2382 KB)

心理科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (5) : 1042-1053. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260502

计算建模与人工智能

对人工智能与人类主体在道德困境中行为的判断差异：性别与焦虑的调节作用^*

作者信息 +

Moral Judgment Differences towards AI versus Human Agents in Moral Dilemmas: The Moderating Roles of Gender and Anxiety

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

随着人工智能技术的广泛应用，如何对人工智能在道德困境中的行为进行评价，已成为公众认知与社会接纳人工智能的关键问题。采用三个实验系统探讨了公众对人工智能与人类在道义与功利行为上的道德判断差异，并考察了性别与人工智能焦虑的调节作用。研究1（n =474）的结果表明，被试对人工智能功利行为的评价显著高于人类，而对两者道义行为的评价无显著差异。研究2（n =290）通过阅读材料诱发个体对人工智能的焦虑情绪，在一定程度上重复了研究1的结果，但未发现焦虑诱发的显著效应。研究3（n =196）增设控制组后发现，在焦虑情绪被成功诱发后，女性对人工智能功利行为的评价显著降低，而男性的评价则保持稳定。结果表明，公众倾向于对人工智能的功利行为给予更高的道德评价，且该倾向受到对人工智能的焦虑情绪与性别的调节。

Abstract

With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, public acceptance of its cognitive capabilities has grown, particularly in domains like medical data analysis where AI may rival or surpass human experts. Despite this growing acceptance, public resistance remains high when AI leads decision-making processes, such as in healthcare, which may stem from concerns about ethical boundaries (Longoni et al., 2019; Bigman & Gray, 2018). This highlights the need to understand how the public evaluates AI behavior in complex moral scenarios, a question that cannot be addressed solely by technical regulations. Moral dilemmas, a classic paradigm in moral psychology, provide a framework to explore how individuals judge AI versus human agents when faced with conflicting choices, such as utilitarian (outcome-focused) versus deontological (principle-focused) actions. Although moral dilemma research on human agents is well established, whether these findings extend to AI agents remains to be determined, as mind perception and responsibility attribution may differ for non-human agents (Waytz et al., 2010; Moor, 2006). This study investigates whether public moral judgments of AI diverge from those of humans, and how gender and AI-induced anxiety moderate these differences.

Three online experiments were conducted using an embodied AI agent (robot) to enhance ecological validity (Malle & Scheutz, 2015). Study 1 employed a 2 (agent: human / AI robot) × 2 (moral behavior: utilitarianism / deontology) ×2 (gender: male / female) mixed design with 474 participants (309 females, M±SD = 29.65 ± 5.75). Participants evaluated 14 moral dilemma scenarios (e.g., footbridge dilemma) on an 11-point morality scale (-5 to +5). Study 2 (N = 290) introduced an anxiety manipulation: participants read five negative (anxiety group) or positive (non-anxiety group) AI-related texts before moral judgments. Anxiety was self-rated on a 7-point scale. Study 3 (N = 196) added a control group reading AI-irrelevant materials to disentangle AI-induced anxiety from baseline anxiety. All studies measured demographic variables, gender, and pre-existing attitudes using scales like the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (Kahane et al., 2017). Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA with SPSS, applying Greenhouse-Geisser correction when necessary.

Study 1 showed a significant agent × moral behavior interaction. Compared with human agents, AI robots received higher moral ratings for utilitarian actions (M_AI_utilitarian =.26 ± 1.67; M_human_utilitarian = −.67 ± 2.01; t(473) = 16.74, p <.001, Cohen’s d =.77), whereas moral ratings for deontological actions did not differ between AI and human agents (p >.05). Gender moderated this effect: males exhibited a stronger deontological tendency when evaluating human agents (p<.05), whereas females showed comparatively more flexible judgments. Study 2 replicated the agent × moral behavior interaction and confirmed successful anxiety induction (anxiety: M_anxiety = 5.70 ±.81; non-anxiety: M_anxiety = 3.34 ± 1.63; p <.001). Induced anxiety was associated with more conservative moral evaluations and slightly reduced the positive evaluation of AI’s utilitarian actions, but the relevant interaction effect was not significant. Study 3 further indicated a gender-specific effect of induced anxiety: relative to the control condition, females in both the anxiety and non-anxiety groups showed reduced moral acceptance of the AI robot’s utilitarian actions, whereas males maintained higher moral acceptance of AI utilitarian actions. In the control group, baseline anxiety was low, and for both males and females, moral ratings of AI utilitarian actions were significantly higher than ratings of AI deontological actions.

Taken together, the public appears to regard AI as a relatively rational and efficient executor and to apply an evaluation orientation that prioritizes utility maximization and overall efficiency for AI. Relative to humans, outcome-maximizing decisions made by AI are more likely to be judged as morally acceptable, resulting in more favorable evaluations of AI’s utilitarian choices. The results also reveal gender differences: females are more susceptible to the influence of anxiety, which may relate to higher empathy and risk sensitivity, whereas males’ judgments are comparatively more stable and place greater emphasis on utilitarian considerations. Overall, moral judgments of AI are context-dependent and dynamically moderated by emotional states and individual differences. These findings provide evidence for the psychological mechanisms underlying moral evaluations in human-AI interaction and may inform the design of responsible AI systems that align with public moral expectations.

导出引用

钟晓波, 刘洁, 崔芳. 对人工智能与人类主体在道德困境中行为的判断差异：性别与焦虑的调节作用^*[J]. 心理科学. 2026, 49(5): 1042-1053 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260502

Zhong Xiaobo, Liu Jie, Cui Fang. Moral Judgment Differences towards AI versus Human Agents in Moral Dilemmas: The Moderating Roles of Gender and Anxiety[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2026, 49(5): 1042-1053 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260502

参考文献

列表( 原文顺序 | 文献年度倒序 | 文中引用次数倒序 ) 可视化分析

[1]	郭雪俐, 苏松, 刘超, 唐红红. (2025). 人工智能应用对人类道德的影响及认知神经机制. 心理科学, 48(6), 1282-1293. 本文引用 [1]

[2]	何雨真, 李念慈, 郑燕, 甘甜. (2024). 情绪卷入程度和期望价值对道德决策的交互影响. 应用心理学, 30(3), 235-242. 本文引用 [1]

[3]	何越, 崔芳, 古若雷, 罗跃嘉. (2022). 人们如何看待人工智能违反道德基础: 道德维度及性别的影响. 第二十四届全国心理学学术会议,河南. 本文引用 [1]

[4]	晋少雄, 刘超. (2025). 由“心”及“智”:心理学研究促进AI价值观对齐的路径探讨. 心理科学, 48(4), 782-791. 本文引用 [1]

[5]	吴河江, 涂艳国. (2024). 超越工具理性:生成式人工智能的教育价值. 教育研究, 45(11), 149-159. 本文引用 [1]

[6]	闫坤如. (2019). 人工智能机器具有道德主体地位吗? 自然辩证法研究, 35(5), 47-51. 本文引用 [1]

[7]	喻丰, 许丽颖. (2018). 如何做出道德的人工智能体?--心理学的视角. 全球传媒学刊, 5(4),24-42. 本文引用 [1]

[8]	喻丰, 赵一骏, 许丽颖, 汪美霞. (2024). 人工智能时代儿童发展的拟人化类别理论及其教育意蕴. 教育发展研究, 44(20),69-76. 本文引用 [1]

[9]	Alkhalifah, J. M., Bedaiwi, A. M., Shaikh, N., Seddiq, W., & Meo, S. A. (2024). Existential anxiety about artificial intelligence: Questionnaire-based observational study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, 1368122. 本文引用 [1]

[10]	Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J. F., & Rahwan, I. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563(7729), 59-64. 本文引用 [2]

[11]	Bigman, Y. E., & Gray, K. (2018). People are averse to machines making moral decisions. Cognition, 181, 21-34. 本文引用 [3]

[12]	Bonnefon, J. F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293), 1573-1576. 本文引用 [2]

[13]	Chen, J., He, M., & Sun, J. (2025). AI anxiety and knowledge payment: The roles of perceived value and self-efficacy. BMC Psychology, 13, 208. 本文引用 [1]

[14]	Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216-235. 本文引用 [1]

[15]	Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1082-1089. 本文引用 [1]

[16]	Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S. (2017). Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 542(7639), 115-118. 本文引用 [1]

[17]	Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5-15. 本文引用 [2]

[18]	Friesdorf, R., Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2015). Gender differences in responses to moral dilemmas: A process analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(5), 696-713. 本文引用 [4]

[19]	Fumagalli, M., Ferrucci, R., Mameli, F., Marceglia, S., Mrakic-Sposta, S., Zago, S., Lucchiari, C., Consonni, D., Nordio, F., Pravettoni, G., Cappa, S., & Priori, A. (2010). Gender-related differences in moral judgments. Cognitive Processing, 11(2), 219-226. 本文引用 [6]

[20]	Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2017). Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 343-376. 本文引用 [1]

[21]	Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2012). Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition, 125(1), 125-130. 本文引用 [1]

[22]	Greene, J. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 322-324. 本文引用 [1]

[23]	Greene, J. D. (2014). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. Penguin Books. 本文引用 [1]

[24]	Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400. 本文引用 [1]

[25]	Hartley, C. A., & Phelps, E. A. (2012). Anxiety and decision-making. Biological Psychiatry, 72(2), 113-118. 本文引用 [1]

[26]	Huang, Y., Dong, Y., Jiang, Z., Zhang, P., Li, J., & Yang, J. (2023). The effects of text direction of different text lengths on Chinese reading. Scientific Reports, 13, 8660. 本文引用 [1]

[27]	Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703-726. 本文引用 [4]

[28]	Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399. 本文引用 [2]

[29]	Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & Savulescu, J. (2017). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125(2), 131-164. 本文引用 [1]

[30]	Kalberg, S. (1980). Max Weber's types of rationality: Cornerstones for the analysis of rationalization processes in history. American Journal of Sociology, 85(5), 1145-1179. 本文引用 [2]

[31]	Kaya, M. D. (2024). The roles of personality traits, AI anxiety, and demographic factors in attitudes toward artificial intelligence. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40(2), 497-514. 本文引用 [2]

[32]	Kim, J. J. H., Soh, J., Kadkol, S., Solomon, I., Yeh, H., Srivatsa, A. V., Nahass, G. R., Choi, J. Y., Lee, S., Nyugen, T., & Ajilore, O. (2025). AI anxiety: A comprehensive analysis of psychological factors and interventions. AI and Ethics, 5, 3993-4009. 本文引用 [1]

[33]	Kislev, E. (2023). The robot-gender divide: How and why men and women differ in their attitudes toward social robots. Social Science Computer Review, 41(6), 2230-2248. 本文引用 [1]

[34]

Komatsu,

, Malle,

B. F.

, & Scheutz,

(2021). Blaming the reluctant robot: Parallel blame judgments for robots in moral dilemmas across U.S. and Japan. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International conference on human-robot interaction (HRI '21) (pp. 63-72). Boulder, Colorado, USA.

本文引用 [4]

[35]	Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019). Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(6), 1275-1293. 本文引用 [1]

[36]	Malle, B. F. (2021). Moral judgments. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 293-318. 本文引用 [1]

[37]	Malle, B. F., & Scheutz, M. (2015). When will people regard robots as morally competent social partners? In 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 486-491). IEEE. 本文引用 [4]

[38]	Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., Arnold, T., Voiklis, J., & Cusimano, C. (2015). Sacrifice one for the good of many? People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 本文引用 [2]

[39]	Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., Cusimano, C., Voiklis, J., Komatsu, T., Thapa, S., & Aladia, S. (2025). People's judgments of humans and robots in a classic moral dilemma. Cognition, 254, 105958. 本文引用 [1]

[40]	Malle, B., F., Thapa, S., & Scheutz, M. (2019). AI in the sky:How people morally evaluate human and machine decisions in a lethal strike dilemma. In M. I. A. Ferreira, J. S. Sequeira, G. S. Virk, M. O. Tokhi, & E. E. Kadar (Eds.), Robotics and well-being (pp. 111-133). Springer. 本文引用 [1]

[41]	Møgelvang, A., Bjelland, C., Grassini, S., & Ludvigsen, K. (2024). Gender differences in the use of generative artificial intelligence chatbots in higher education: Characteristics and consequences. Education Sciences, 14(12), 1363. 本文引用 [1]

[42]	Moor, J. (2006). The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 18-21. 本文引用 [1]

[43]

Scheutz,

, & Malle,

B. F.

(2021). May machines take lives to save lives? Human perceptions of autonomous robots (with the capacity to kill). In J. Galliott, D. MacIntosh, & J. D. Ohlin (Eds.), Lethal autonomous weapons: Re-examining the law and ethics of robotic warfare. Oxford University Press.

本文引用 [2]

[44]	Spatola, N., Wudarczyk, O. A., Nomura, T., & Cherif, E. (2023). Attitudes towards robots measure (ARM): A new measurement tool aggregating previous scales assessing attitudes toward robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 15, 1683-1701. 本文引用 [1]

[45]	Starcke, K., Ludwig, A. C., & Brand, M. (2012). Anticipatory stress interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(1), 61-68. 本文引用 [1]

[46]	Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383-388. 本文引用 [2]

[47]	Weigl, K., Nees, M. A., Eisele, D., & Riener, A. (2022). Acceptance of automated vehicles: Gender effects, but lack of meaningful association with desire for control in Germany and in the U.S. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 13, 100563. 本文引用 [3]

[48]	Williams, B. (1978). Ethical consistency. In J. Raz (Ed.), Practical reasoning (pp.91-109). Oxford University Press. 本文引用 [1]

[49]	Yam, K. C., Tang, P. M., Jackson, J. C., Su, R., & Gray, K. (2023). The rise of robots increases job insecurity and maladaptive workplace behaviors: Multimethod evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 850-870. 本文引用 [1]

[50]	Yang, H., & Sundar, S. S. (2025). AI anxiety: Explication and exploration of effect on state anxiety when interacting with AI doctors. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 3, 100128. 本文引用 [2]

[51]	Youssef, F. F., Dookeeram, K., Basdeo, V., Francis, E., Doman, M., Mamed, D., Maloo, S., Degannes, J., Dobo, L., Ditshotlo, P., & Legall, G. (2012). Stress alters personal moral decision making. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(4), 491-498. 本文引用 [1]

[52]	Zhang, Y., Wu, J., Yu, F., & Xu, L. (2023). Moral judgments of human vs. AI agents in moral dilemmas. Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 181. 本文引用 [6]

[53]	Zhang, Z., Chen, Z., & Xu, L. (2022). Artificial intelligence and moral dilemmas: Perception of ethical decision-making in AI. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 101, 104327. 本文引用 [1]

[54]	Zhao, J., Harris, M., & Vigo, R. (2016). Anxiety and moral judgment: The shared deontological tendency of the behavioral inhibition system and the unique utilitarian tendency of trait anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 29-33. 本文引用 [1]