The ethical dimensions of human–AI (artificial intelligence) interaction demand attention. As artificial intelligence assistants become more anthropomorphized, will the public interact with AI as humans morally? This study applied content analysis to data from an online question-and-answer platform in China (N = 287) to explore the public’s judgments of gratitude toward artificial intelligence assistants. The findings revealed the majority supports expressing gratitude, while a significant minority disagrees, indicating diverse ethical judgments. By further analyzing people’s reasoning, this study found that supporters attribute gratitude to moral autonomy driven by virtue ethics, moral responsibility for responsible AI, and the perceived source identity of anthropomorphized AI as human, aligning with the Computers-are-Social-Actors paradigm. In contrast, opponents doubt AI’s moral agency, highlighting the perceived source of AI as machines, and they judge that treating it with human manners is useless and potentially dangerous. These insights enhance the understanding of the public’s view of ethical considerations regarding AI assistants, contribute to gratitude research in the context of human–AI interaction, extend the moral dimension of the Computers-are-Social-Actors paradigm, and emphasize the importance of moral and responsible AI use. Suggestions for future research based on the exploratory findings are also discussed.
AlgoeSBHaidtJGableSL (2008) Beyond reciprocity: Gratitude and relationships in everyday life. Emotion8(3): 425–429.
2.
AmershiSWeldDVorvoreanuMFourneyANushiB (2019) Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, 2 May 2019, pp. 1–13. New York, NY: ACM.
3.
AuL (2022) Testing the talented child: Direct-to-consumer genetic talent tests in China. Public Understanding of Science31(2): 195–210.
4.
BartelsDMBaumanCWCushmanFAPizarroDAMcGrawAP (2015) Moral judgment and decision making. In: KerenGWuG (eds) The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 478–515.
BlutMWangCWünderlichNVBrockC (2021) Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: A meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science49(4): 632–658.
7.
Caro-BurnettJKanekoS (2022) Is society ready for AI ethical decision making? Lessons from a study on autonomous cars. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics98: 101881.
8.
CarrN (2015) The Glass Cage: Where Automation Is Taking Us. Rochester, NY: Vintage Digital.
9.
ChappelSG (2019) Gratitude as a virtue. In: RobertsRTelechD (eds) The Moral Psychology of Gratitude. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 245–246.
10.
CharmazKThornbergRKeaneE (2017) Evolving grounded theory and social justice inquiry. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. New York, NY: Sage, pp. 411–443.
11.
CheokADZhangEY (2019) An overview of love between humans and artificial partners. In: CheokADZhangEY (eds) Human–Robot Intimate Relationships. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–21.
12.
CugurulloFAcheampongRA (2024) Fear of AI: An inquiry into the adoption of autonomous cars in spite of fear, and a theoretical framework for the study of artificial intelligence technology acceptance. AI & Society39(4): 1569–1584.
13.
DavidPChoungHSebergerJS (2024) Who is responsible? US public perceptions of AI governance through the lenses of trust and ethics. Public Understanding of Science33(5): 654–672.
14.
ElfersJHlavaP (2016) Foundations of gratitude: Human cooperation and reciprocity. In: ElfersJHlavaP (eds) The Spectrum of Gratitude Experience. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 9–29.
15.
EmmonsRAMcCulloughME (2004) The Psychology of Gratitude. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
EpleyNWaytzACacioppoJT (2007) On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review114(4): 864–886.
17.
FloridiLSandersJW (2004) On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines14: 349–379.
18.
FortunatiLEdwardsA (2021) Moving ahead with human-machine communication. Human-machine Communication2: 7–28.
19.
FrittsMCabreraF (2021) AI recruitment algorithms and the dehumanization problem. Ethics and Information Technology23(4): 791–801.
20.
GambinoAFoxJRatanRA (2020) Building a stronger CASA: Extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Human-machine Communication1: 171–185.
21.
GardinerSM (2006) A core precautionary principle. Journal of Political Philosophy14(1): 33–60.
22.
GrahamJMeindlPBeallEJohnsonKMZhangL (2016) Cultural differences in moral judgment and behavior, across and within societies. Current Opinion in Psychology8: 125–130.
23.
GuzmanALLewisSC (2020) Artificial intelligence and communication: A human–machine communication research agenda. new media & society22(1): 70–86.
24.
HancockJTNaamanMLevyK (2020) AI-mediated communication: Definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication25(1): 89–100.
25.
HermanB (2012) Being helped and being grateful: Imperfect duties, the ethics of possession, and the unity of morality. The Journal of Philosophy109(5/6): 391–411.
26.
HeyderTPasslackNPoseggaO (2023) Ethical management of human-AI interaction: Theory development review. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems32(3): 101772.
27.
HeyselaarE (2023) The CASA theory no longer applies to desktop computers. Scientific Reports13: 19693.
28.
JacksonL (2016) Why should I be grateful? The morality of gratitude in contexts marked by injustice. Journal of Moral Education45(3): 276–290.
29.
JobinAIencaMVayenaE (2019) The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence1(9): 389–399.
30.
KantI (1994) Ethical Philosophy: The Complete Texts of Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, and Metaphysical Principles of Virtue, Part II of the Metaphysics of Morals, with on a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
31.
KillenMHartD (1999) Morality in Everyday Life: Developmental Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
KimYSundarSS (2012) Anthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless?Computers in Human Behavior28(1): 241–250.
33.
KristjánssonK (2015) An Aristotelian virtue of gratitude. Topoi34(2): 499–511.
34.
LeeE-J (2009) I like you, but I won’t listen to you: Effects of rationality on affective and behavioral responses to computers that flatter. International Journal of Human-computer Studies67(8): 628–638.
35.
LeeE-J (2024) Minding the source: Toward an integrative theory of human-machine communication. Human Communication Research50(2): 184–193.
36.
LeightonJPSternbergRJ (2004) The Nature of Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
LiCWangJZhangYZhuKHouWLianJ, et al. (2023) Large language models understand and can be enhanced by emotional stimuli. arXiv: 2307.11760. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11760
38.
LianYTangHXiangMDongX (2024) Public attitudes and sentiments toward ChatGPT in China: A text mining analysis based on social media. Technology in Society76: 102442.
39.
LiangJLiuXZhangW (2019) Scientists vs laypeople: How genetically modified food is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science28(8): 991–1004.
40.
LombardMXuK (2021) Social responses to media technologies in the 21st century: The Media are Social Actors paradigm. Human-machine Communication2: 29–55.
41.
McAleerS (2012) Propositional gratitude. American Philosophical Quarterly49(1): 55–66.
42.
McConnellT (2019) Acting from gratitude. In: RobertsRTelechD (eds) The Moral Psychology of Gratitude. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield International, pp. 35–56.
43.
ManelaT (2016) Gratitude and appreciation. American Philosophical Quarterly53(3): 281–294.
MoonYNassC (1996) How “real” are computer personalities?: Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction. Communication Research23(6): 651–674.
46.
MouYXuK (2017) The media inequality: Comparing the initial human-human and human-AI social interactions. Computers in Human Behavior72: 432–440.
47.
MouYLanJHuangY (2023) Good night versus goodbye? Comparing the mourning remarks of virtual and human uploaders through a data-mining approach. new media & society. Epub ahead of print 2 December. DOI: 10.1177/14614448231212822.
NassCMoonY (2000) Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues56(1): 81–103.
50.
NassCSteuerJSiminoffE (1994) Computers are social actors. In: CHI '94: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, 24–28 April.
51.
NavarroJLTudgeJRH (2020) What is gratitude? Ingratitude provides the answer. Human Development64(2): 83–96.
52.
OhCGParkJ (2014) From mechanical metamorphosis to empathic interaction: A historical overview of robotic creatures. Journal of Human-robot Interaction3(1): 4–19.
ReevesBNassCI (1996) The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
RobertsRTelechD (2019) The Moral Psychology of Gratitude (Moral psychology of the emotions). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
57.
ShaikhSJ (2023) Artificially intelligent, interactive, and assistive machines: A definitional framework for intelligent assistants. International Journal of Human–computer Interaction39(4): 776–789.
58.
StohrKE (2002) Virtue ethics and Kant’s cold-hearted benefactor. Journal of Value Inquiry32(2–3): 187–204.
59.
Stokel-WalkerCVan NoordenR (2023) What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature614(7947): 214–216.
60.
SundarSS (2020) Rise of machine agency: A framework for studying the psychology of human–ai interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-mediated Communication25(1): 74–88.
61.
SundarSSLeeE-J (2022) Rethinking communication in the era of artificial intelligence. Human Communication Research48(3): 379–385.
62.
SundarSSNassC (2000) Source orientation in human-computer interaction: Programmer, networker, or independent social actor. Communication Research27(6): 683–703.
63.
SwanepoelD (2021) Does Artificial Intelligence Have Agency?. In: HipólitoIClowesRWGärtnerK (eds) The Mind-technology Problem: Investigating Minds, Selves and 21St Century Artefacts. New York, NY: Springer Verlag, pp. 83–104.
TroshaniIRao HillSShermanCArthurD (2021) Do we trust in AI? role of anthropomorphism and intelligence. Journal of Computer Information Systems61(5): 481–491.
67.
WalkerADM (1989) Obligations of gratitude and political obligation. Philosophy and Public Affairs18(4): 359–364.
68.
WatkinsPC (2014) Gratitude and the Good Life: Toward a Psychology of Appreciation. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
69.
WaytzACacioppoJEpleyN (2010) Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science5(3): 219–232.
70.
WhiteMDMarshEE (2006) Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends55(1): 22–45.
71.
XuKChenXHuangL (2022) Deep mind in social responses to technologies: A new approach to explaining the Computers are Social Actors phenomena. Computers in Human Behavior134: 107321.
72.
XuWDainoffMGeLGaoZ (2023) Transitioning to human interaction with AI systems: New challenges and opportunities for HCI professionals to enable human-centered AI. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction39: 494–518.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
