IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tbitxx/v44y2025i11p2637-2648.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moral behaviour alters impressions of humans and AIs on teams: unethical AIs are more powerful while ethical humans are nicer

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel B. Shank
  • Matthew Dew
  • Fatima Sajjad

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) agents are increasingly being used as teammates, not just as tools, across many domains, and teammates’ moral behaviour can alter impressions of themselves and the team. How good, powerful, and active is an AI versus human team member engaging in an ethical or unethical behaviour? How good, powerful, and active is their team? To address these questions, we conduct four studies across three domains (chess, esports, and poetry composition) where participants rate their impressions of team members and teams presented in a scenario. In the scenario, a member of a hybrid team of 2 humans and 2 AIs is presented with an opportunity to cheat, and either does or does not. We manipulate which team member (AI vs human) is acting and the morality of that action (non-cheating vs cheating). Across the studies, results show that ethical behaviour significantly increases the goodness of the human more than the AI, and unethical behaviour significantly increases the power of the AI more than the human. However, there were no systematic human versus AI differences on team impressions.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel B. Shank & Matthew Dew & Fatima Sajjad, 2025. "Moral behaviour alters impressions of humans and AIs on teams: unethical AIs are more powerful while ethical humans are nicer," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(11), pages 2637-2648, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:44:y:2025:i:11:p:2637-2648
    DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2024.2403651
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2403651
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2403651?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:44:y:2025:i:11:p:2637-2648. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tbit .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.