Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly encroaching on domains traditionally reserved for humans, including moral judgment. This trend has sparked heated debates, with both strong concerns and optimism about its implications. To contribute to this discourse, this research examines how individuals respond when AI participates in moral evaluations of cyberbullying incidents. We conducted an experiment employing 3 (Reviewer cue: human vs. AI vs. collaboration) × 2 (Roles in cyberbullying incident: victim vs. bystander) between-subjects design. Findings show that the AI reviewer cue indirectly increased perceived decision compliance, report efficacy, and future report intention by activating positive machine heuristics. However, negative machine heuristics did not mediate the effects of AI reviewer cues on perceived report efficacy and future report intention. Human–AI collaboration did not differ significantly from either AI-only or human-only reviewer cues. In addition, although the interaction effect was not significant, planned contrasts suggest that victims may be more likely to perceive the AI reviewer as lacking contextual understanding, whereas bystanders may view it as more objective. This highlights the challenges of using AI-driven judgment in sensitive areas such as cyberbullying, emphasizing the need for practical improvements to enhance reporting systems.
MilosevicT. Social media companies’ cyberbullying policies. Int J Commun2016;10:22.
2.
YangH, SundarSS. Machine heuristic: Concept explication and development of a measurement scale. J Comput Mediated Commun2024;29(6):zmae019.
3.
MitraS, TasnimT, IslamMA, et al.A Framework to Detect and Prevent Cyberbullying from Social Media by Exploring Machine Learning Algorithms. In: 2021 International Conference on Computer, Communication, Chemical, Materials and Electronic Engineering (IC4ME2). IEEE; 2021, pp. 1–4.
4.
ShahF, AnwarA, Ul HaqI, et al.Artificial intelligence as a service for immoral content detection and eradication. Sci Program2022;2022(1):1–9.
DresselJ, FaridH. The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Sci Adv2018;4(1):eaao5580.
7.
LeeMK. Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society2018;5(1):2053951718756684.
8.
MosierKL, SkitkaLJ. Automation use and automation bias. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting1999;43(3):344–348.
9.
MolinaMD, SundarSS. When AI moderates online content: Effects of human collaboration and interactive transparency on user trust. J Comput Mediated Commun2022;27(4):zmac010.
10.
BrodyN, VangelistiAL. Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Commun Monogr2016;83(1):94–119.
11.
HayashiY, TahmasbiN. Decision-making process underlying bystanders’ helping cyberbullying victims: A behavioral economic analysis of role of social discounting. Comput Human Behav2020;104:106157.
12.
RyooY, JeonYA, KimW. The blame shift: Robot service failures hold service firms more accountable. J Bus Res2024;171:114360.
13.
AgerströmJ, BjörklundF, AllwoodCM. The influence of temporal distance on justice and care morality. Scand J Psychol2010;51(1):46–55.
14.
SundarSS. Rise of machine agency: A framework for studying the psychology of human–AI interaction (HAII). J Comput Mediated Commun2020;25(1):74–88.
15.
KimW, RyooY, DrumwrightM, et al.Hypocrisy Induction in Advertising. Journal of Advertising2023;52(3):349–368; doi: 10.1080/00913367.2022.2043793
LianAT, Costilla ReyesA, HuX. CAPTAIN: an AI-based Chatbot for cyberbullying prevention and intervention. In: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland; 2023, pp. 98–107.
18.
AzeezNA, IdiakoseSO, OnyemaCJ, et al.Cyberbullying detection in social networks: Artificial intelligence approach. JCSANDM2021:745–774.
19.
IslamMR, BatainehAS, ZulkernineM. Detection of cyberbullying in social media texts using explainable artificial intelligence. In: International Conference on Ubiquitous Security. Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore; 2023, pp. 319–334.
20.
SundarSS, KimJ. Machine heuristic: When we trust computers more than humans with our personal information. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI; 2019, pp. 1–9.
21.
WaddellTF. Can an algorithm reduce the perceived bias of news? Testing the effect of machine attribution on news readers’ evaluations of bias, anthropomorphism, and credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly2019;96(1):82–100.
22.
SharmaS. Artificial intelligence for fracture diagnosis in orthopedic X-rays: Current developments and future potential. Sicot J2023;9:21.
23.
Dell’AcquaF, McFowlandEIII, MollickER, et al.Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of AI on knowledge worker productivity and quality. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt; 2023. Unit working paper.
24.
ChungM, MoonWK, Jones-JangSM. AI as an apolitical referee: Using alternative sources to decrease partisan biases in the processing of fact-checking messages. Digital Journalism2024;12(10):1548–1569.
25.
AshktorabZ, LiaoQV, DuganC, et al.Human–AI collaboration in a cooperative game setting: Measuring social perception and outcomes. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact2020;4(CSCW2):1–20.
26.
VaccaroM, AlmaatouqA, MaloneT.When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nat Hum Behav2024;8(12):2293–2303; doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1
27.
BachTA, KristiansenJK, BabicA, et al.Unpacking human-AI interaction in safety-critical industries: A systematic literature review. IEEE Access2024;12:106385–106414.
28.
KhadpeP, KrishnaR, Fei-FeiL, et al.Conceptual metaphors impact perceptions of human-ai collaboration. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact2020;4(CSCW2):1–26.
29.
Domínguez-HernándezF, BonellL, Martínez-GonzálezA. A systematic literature review of factors that moderate bystanders’ actions in cyberbullying. CP2018;12(4).
30.
LiangJ, ChenX, LiT, et al.Beyond justice perceptions: The role of interpersonal justice trajectories and social class in perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Front Psychol2021;12:595731.
31.
FengJY, LevineM. Factors associated with nurses’ intention to report child abuse: A national survey of Taiwanese nurses. Child Abuse Negl2005;29(7):783–795.
32.
LewisIM, WatsonB, WhiteKM. Response efficacy: The key to minimizing rejection and maximizing acceptance of emotion-based anti-speeding messages. Accid Anal Prev2010;42(2):459–467.
33.
NormanP, ArmitageCJ, QuigleyC. The theory of planned behavior and binge drinking: Assessing the impact of binge drinker prototypes. Addict Behav2007;32(9):1753–1768.
34.
HayesAF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications; 2017.
35.
DietvorstBJ, SimmonsJP, MasseyC. Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J Exp Psychol Gen2015;144(1):114–126.
36.
SundarSS, LiaoMM, LeeS. Algorithms and affordances: Psychology of human–AI interaction. In: De Gruyter Handbook of Media Psychology. De Gruyter; 2025; pp. 323–334.
37.
Schultze-KrumbholzA, ZagorscakP, HessM, et al.The influence of school climate and empathy on cyberbystanders’ intention to assist or defend in cyberbullying. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention2020;2(1):16–28.
38.
XuZ. Human judges in the era of artificial intelligence: Challenges and opportunities. Applied Artificial Intelligence2022;36(1):2013652.
39.
SourdinT. Judge v Robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. Univ New South Wales Law J2018;41(4):1114–1133.
40.
SundarSS, BellurS, OhJ, et al.Theoretical importance of contingency in human-computer interaction: Effects of message interactivity on user engagement. Communication Res2016;43(5):595–625.
41.
LeeS, MoonW-K, LeeJ-G, et al.When the machine learns from users, is it helping or snooping?Computers in Human Behavior2023;138:107427; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107427
42.
BlakeKR, GangestadS. On attenuated interactions, measurement error, and statistical power: Guidelines for social and personality psychologists. Pers Soc Psychol Bull2020;46(12):1702–1711.
