AI systems are rapidly being placed in positions where they can directly influence decisions that require a strong consideration of ethics. This article reports on an experiment in which humans worked with a teammate acting as an expert advisor with expert-level knowledge, who informed and influenced their ethical decision-making. The identity of this expert advisor was manipulated to be either human or AI, and the influence exerted by the expert advisor was manipulated to be either low or high. Further, participants completed four scenarios, each exploring a different ethically charged decision. Results indicated that working with an AI teammate expert advisor led participants to perceive significantly lower levels of stress and responsibility when making ethical decisions, but AI expert advisors were also perceived as performing worse than human expert advisors. Additionally, when expert advisors exerted high influence levels, participants felt significantly less stress during the decision-making process. Finally, the scenario and ethical decisions made by participants had pervasive effects on trust, trustworthiness, perceived performance, and perceived power for both human and AI expert advisors. Future research efforts must ensure that the use of AI expert advisors in human-AI teams does not reduce the responsibility humans bear when making various ethical decisions.
AlarconG. M.LyonsJ. B.HamdanI. A.JessupS. A. (2024). Affective responses to trust violations in a human-autonomy teaming context: Humans versus robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 16(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01017-w
2.
AshktorabZ.DuganC.JohnsonJ.PanQ.ZhangW.KumaravelS.CampbellM. (2021). Effects of communication directionality and AI agent differences in Human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–15). Published by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445256
3.
BeuD. S.BuckleyM. R.HarveyM. G. (2003). Ethical decision–making: A multidimensional construct. Business Ethics: A European Review, 12(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00308
4.
BhatS.LyonsJ. B.ShiC.YangX. J. (2024). Evaluating the impact of personalized value alignment in human-robot interaction: Insights into trust and team performance outcomes. In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Boulder, CO, 11-14 March 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610977.3634921
BigmanY. E.WilsonD.ArnestadM. N.WaytzA.GrayK. (2023). Algorithmic discrimination causes less moral outrage than human discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001250
7.
BochniarzK. T.CzerwińskiS. K.SawickiA.AtroszkoP. A. (2022). Attitudes to AI among high school students: Understanding distrust towards humans will not help us understand distrust towards AI. Personality and Individual Differences, 185, 111299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111299
8.
BuçincaZ.MalayaM. B.GajosK. Z. (2021). To trust or to think: Cognitive forcing functions can reduce overreliance on AI in AI-assisted decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449287
9.
ByrneB. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807644
ChengL.VarshneyK. R.LiuH. (2021). Socially responsible AI algorithms: Issues, purposes, and challenges. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 71, 1137–1181. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12814
12.
ChengM. M.HackettR. D. (2021). A critical review of algorithms in HRM: Definition, theory, and practice. Human Resource Management Review, 31(1), 100698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100698
13.
ChiouE. K.LeeJ. D. (2023). Trusting automation: Designing for responsivity and resilience. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 65(1), 137–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211009995
14.
CrutchfieldT. N.KlamonK. (2014). Assessing the dimensions and outcomes of an effective teammate. Journal of Education for Business, 89(6), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.885873
15.
DemirM.McNeeseN. J.CookeN. J. (2018). The impact of perceived autonomous agents on dynamic team behaviors. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, 2(4), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1109/tetci.2018.2829985
16.
DietvorstB. J.BhartiS. (2020). People reject algorithms in uncertain decision domains because they have diminishing sensitivity to forecasting error. Psychological Science, 31(10), 1302–1314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620948841
17.
DietvorstB. J.SimmonsJ. P.MasseyC. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033
18.
DignumV. (2019). Responsible artificial intelligence: How to develop and use AI in a responsible way. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30371-6
19.
DubljevićV.SattlerS.RacineE. (2018). Deciphering moral intuition: How agents, deeds, and consequences influence moral judgment. PLoS One, 13(10), e0204631. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204631
20.
DyerJ. L. (1984). Team research and team training: A state-of-the-art review. Human Factors Review, 26, 285–323.
21.
EngelC.LinhardtL.SchubertM. (2025). Code is law: How COMPAS affects the way the judiciary handles the risk of recidivism. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 33(2), 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-024-09389-8
FlathmannC.DuanW.McNeeseN. J.HauptmanA.ZhangR. (2024). Empirically understanding the potential impacts and process of social influence in Human-AI teams. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637326
24.
FrenchJ. R.RavenB. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In CartwrightD. (Ed.),Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). MI: Institute for Social Research. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.12381759
25.
GazitL.ArazyO.HertzU. (2023). Choosing between human and algorithmic advisors: The role of responsibility sharing. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 1(2), 100009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100009
26.
GratchJ.FastN. J. (2022). The power to harm: AI assistants pave the way to unethical behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101382
27.
GreerL. L.CarusoH. M.JehnK. A. (2011). The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.005
28.
HafizogluF. M.SenS. (2018a). Reputation based trust in human-agent teamwork without explicit coordination. In: HAI '18: 6th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction Southampton United KingdomDecember 15 - 18, 2018.
HaringK. S.SatterfieldK. M.TossellC. C.De VisserE. J.LyonsJ. R.MancusoV. F.FinomoreV. S.FunkeG. J. (2021). Robot authority in human-robot teaming: Effects of human-likeness and physical embodiment on compliance. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 625713. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.625713
31.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
32.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
33.
KimH.SchnallS.WhiteM. P. (2013). Similar psychological distance reduces temporal discounting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(8), 1005–1016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213488214
34.
KlingbeilA.GrütznerC.SchreckP. (2024). Trust and reliance on AI—An experimental study on the extent and costs of overreliance on AI. Computers in Human Behavior, 160, 108352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108352
35.
KnijnenburgB.WillemsenM. (2015). Evaluating recommender systems with user experiments. In Recommender systems handbook (pp. 309–352). Springer US.
36.
KohnS. C.de VisserE. J.WieseE.LeeY.-C.ShawT. H. (2021). Measurement of trust in automation: A narrative review and reference guide. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 604977. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.604977
37.
KumarK. M.MadhuM.PratyakshaB.SushmitaS.JavedG. S. (2023). Ethical AI conundrum: Accountability and liability of AI decision making. In 2023 IEEE technology & Engineering Management Conference-Asia Pacific (TEMSCON-ASPAC) (1–6). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10531445/
38.
LangerM.KönigC. J.BackC.HemsingV. (2023). Trust in artificial intelligence: Comparing trust processes between human and automated trustees in light of unfair bias. Journal of Business and Psychology, 38(3), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09829-9
LeibM.KöbisN.RilkeR. M.HagensM.IrlenbuschB. (2024). Corrupted by algorithms? How AI-Generated and human-written advice shape (Dis)Honesty. The Economic Journal, 134(658), 766–784. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/uead056
LiH.NiT.AgrawalS.JiaF.RajaS.GuiY.HughesD.LewisM.SycaraK. (2021). Individualized mutual adaptation in human-agent teams. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 51(6), 706–714. https://doi.org/10.1109/thms.2021.3107675
43.
LucasG. M.GratchJ.KingA.MorencyL.-P. (2014). It’s only a computer: Virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.043
44.
LyonsJ. B.GuznovS. Y. (2019). Individual differences in human–machine trust: A multi-study look at the perfect automation schema. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 20(4), 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2018.1491071
45.
LyonsJ. B.aldin HamdanI.VoT. Q. (2023a). Explanations and trust: What happens to trust when A robot partner does something unexpected?Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107473
LyonsJ. B.SycaraK.LewisM.CapiolaA. (2021). Human–autonomy teaming: Definitions, debates, and directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 589585. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.589585
48.
MadhavanP.WiegmannD. A. (2007). Effects of information source, pedigree, and reliability on operator interaction with decision support systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49(5), 773–785. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007X230154
49.
MadhavanP.WiegmannD. A. (2007). Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(4), 277–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500337708
50.
MartinA.BagdasarovZ.ConnellyS. (2015). The capacity for ethical decisions: The relationship between working memory and ethical decision making. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(2), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9544-x
51.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123
52.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
53.
McManusR. M.RutchickA. M. (2019). Autonomous vehicles and the attribution of moral responsibility. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618755875
54.
MehrabiN.MorstatterF.SaxenaN.LermanK.GalstyanA. (2022). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457607
55.
MerrittS. M.HeimbaughH.LaChapellJ.LeeD. (2013). I trust It, but I don’t know why: Effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Human Factors, 55(3), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812465081
MomenA.De VisserE.WolstenK.CooleyK.WalliserJ.TossellC. C. (2023). Trusting the moral judgments of a robot: Perceived moral competence and humanlikeness of a GPT-3 enabled AI. Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,501–510. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2023.063
58.
MunyakaI.AshktorabZ.DuganC.JohnsonJ.PanQ. (2023). Decision making strategies and team efficacy in Human-AI teams. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579476
59.
MusickG.O’NeillT. A.SchelbleB. G.McNeeseN. J.HenkeJ. B. (2021). What happens when humans believe their teammate is an AI? An investigation into humans teaming with autonomy. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, 106852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106852
60.
O’NeillT.McNeeseN.BarronA.SchelbleB. (2022). Human–autonomy teaming: A review and analysis of the empirical literature. Human Factors, 64(5), 904–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820960865
OmraniN.RivieccioG.FioreU.SchiavoneF.AgredaS. G. (2022). To trust or not to trust? An assessment of trust in AI-Based systems: Concerns, ethics and contexts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 181, 121763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121763
63.
OuchchyL.CoinA.DubljevićV. (2020). AI in the headlines: The portrayal of the ethical issues of artificial intelligence in the media. AI & Society, 35(4), 927–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00965-5
64.
PaganoT. P.LoureiroR. B.LisboaF. V.PeixotoR. M.GuimarãesG. A.CruzG. O.AraujoM. M.SantosL. L.CruzM. A.OliveiraE. L.WinklerI.NascimentoE. G. S. (2023). Bias and unfairness in machine learning models: A systematic review on datasets, tools, fairness metrics, and identification and mitigation methods. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 7(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7010015
65.
PflanzerM.TraylorZ.LyonsJ. B.DubljevićV.NamC. S. (2023). Ethics in Human–AI teaming: Principles and perspectives. AI and Ethics, 3(3), 917–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00214-z
66.
PopV. L.ShrewsburyA.DursoF. T. (2015). Individual differences in the calibration of trust in automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57(4), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814564422
67.
RiegerT.KuglerL.ManzeyD.RoeslerE. (2024). The (Im)perfect automation schema: Who is trusted more, automated or human decision support?Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 66(8), 1995–2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208231197347
68.
SalasE.CookeN. J.RosenM. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50(3), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008x288457
69.
SchelbleB. G.FlathmannC.McNeeseN. J.O’NeillT.PakR.NamaraM. (2022). Investigating the effects of perceived teammate artificiality on human performance and cognition. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(13), 2686–2701. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2085191
70.
SchelbleB. G.LancasterC.DuanW.MallickR.McNeeseN. J.LopezJ. (2023). The effect of AI teammate ethicality on trust outcomes and individual performance in Human-AI teams. Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 322–331. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2023.040
71.
SchelbleB. G.LopezJ.TextorC.ZhangR.McNeeseN. J.PakR.FreemanG. (2024). Towards ethical AI: Empirically investigating dimensions of AI ethics, trust repair, and performance in Human-AI teaming. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 66(4), 1037–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208221116952
72.
SchelbleB. G.TextorC.ZhangR.LopezJ.TaverezN.KuC.McNeeseN. J.PakR.FreemanG.TossellC.De VisserE. (2025). Addressing the role of context on trust in Human-AI teams: The influence of team role and violation type in high-risk tasks. Ergonomics, Online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2025.2570300
SenguptaS.FlathmannC.SchelbleB.LyonsJ. B.McNeeseN. (2024). An analysis of ethical rationales and their impact on the perceived moral persona of AI teammates. AI and Ethics, 5(3), 2667–2679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00515-5
75.
SkitkaL. J.MosierK.BurdickM. D. (2000). Accountability and automation bias. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(4), 701–717. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0349
TextorC.ZhangR.LopezJ.SchelbleB. G.McNeeseN. J.FreemanG.PakR.TossellC.de VisserE. J. (2022). Exploring the relationship between ethics and trust in human–artificial intelligence teaming: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 16(4), 252–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434221113964
78.
Van DiggelenJ.Boshuijzen-van BurkenC.AbbassH. (2025). Team design patterns for meaningful human control in responsible military artificial intelligence. In SteffenB. (Ed.), Bridging the gap between AI and reality (15217, pp. 40–54). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-75434-0_4
79.
WoideM.StiegemeierD.PfattheicherS.BaumannM. (2021). Measuring driver-vehicle cooperation: Development and validation of the human-machine-interaction-interdependence questionnaire (HMII). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 83, 424–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.11.003
80.
YamK. C.GohE.-Y.FehrR.LeeR.SohH.GrayK. (2022). When your boss is A robot: Workers are more spiteful to robot supervisors that seem more human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102, 104360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104360
81.
YazdanpanahV.GerdingE. H.SteinS.DastaniM.JonkerC. M.NormanT. J.RamchurnS. D. (2023). Reasoning about responsibility in autonomous systems: Challenges and opportunities. AI & Society, 38(4), 1453–1464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01607-8
82.
ZhangR.FlathmannC.MusickG.SchelbleB.McNeeseN. J.KnijnenburgB.DuanW. (2024). I know this looks bad, but I can explain: Understanding when AI should explain actions in Human-AI teams. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 14(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3635474
