[Hematological complications of alcohol abuse].

F. Wisløff,E. Magnus

1980-08-30

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Predicting responsibility judgments from dispositional inferences and causal attributions

Antonia Frederike Langenhoff,Alex Wiegmann,Joseph Y Halpern,Joshua Tenenbaum,Tobias Gerstenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/63zvw

2019-09-24

Abstract:The question of how people hold others responsible has motivated decades of theorizing and empirical work. In this paper, we develop and test a computational model that bridges the gap between broad but qualitative framework theories, and quantitative but narrow models. In our model, responsibility judgments are the result of two cognitive processes: a dispositional inference about a person's character from their action, and a causal attribution about the person's role in bringing about the outcome. We test the model in a group setting in which political committee members vote on whether or not a policy should be passed. We assessed participants' dispositional inferences and causal attributions by asking how surprising and important a committee member's vote was. Participants' answers to these questions in Experiment 1 accurately predicted responsibility judgments in Experiment 2. In Experiments 3 and 4, we show that the model also predicts moral responsibility judgments, and that importance matters more for responsibility, while surprise matters more for judgments of wrongfulness.
Effects of Task Structure and Attribution Target on Responsibility Attributions in Human–robot Interaction

Xin Lei,Pei-Luen Patrick Rau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103038

IF: 4.866

2023-01-01

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

Abstract:Responsibility attribution refers to beliefs about the cause of an event or outcome. This study investigates the effects of cooperation and competition on responsibility attributions after success and failure in human-robot interaction. A 2 x 2 x 2 mixed-design experiment was conducted, with task structure (cooperation vs. compe-tition) and attribution target (self vs. robot) as within-subject variables and task outcome (win vs. lose) as a between-subject variable. Forty students from a university campus participated in the experiment. They coop-erated with or competed against a humanoid robot in a picture memory game whose outcome either exceeded (success) or did not reach (failure) an expected outcome. Afterward, participants allocated the causal re-sponsibility between themselves and the humanoid robot for a specified performance success or failure. It was found that participants attributed more responsibility for success to themselves than to the humanoid robot, and such self-serving bias was greater in competitive than in cooperative structures. Additionally, participants attributed more responsibility for failure to themselves than to the humanoid robot in cooperative structures but not in competitive structures. Moreover, the competitiveness index of unsuccessful participants moderated the relationship between the task structure and the differential responsibility attribution between the self and the robot. Furthermore, participants evaluated the humanoid robot more positively in cooperative than competitive structures. Finally, participants had higher accuracy in cooperative structures, although they subjectively perceived that they performed better in competitive structures. These findings provide insight to guide people's attributional behavior, task performance, and evaluation of robots in the desired manner from the perspective of task structure design.
The importance of epistemic intentions in ascription of responsibility

Katarina M. Kovacevic,Francesca Bonalumi,Christophe Heintz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50961-0

IF: 4.6

2024-01-13

Scientific Reports

Abstract:We investigate how people ascribe responsibility to an agent who caused a bad outcome but did not know he would. The psychological processes for making such judgments, we argue, involve finding a counterfactual in which some minimally benevolent intention initiates a course of events that leads to a better outcome than the actual one. We hypothesize that such counterfactuals can include, when relevant, epistemic intentions. With four vignette studies, we show that people consider epistemic intentions when ascribing responsibility for a bad outcome. We further investigate which epistemic intentions people are likely to consider when building counterfactuals for responsibility ascription. We find that, when an agent did not predict a bad outcome, people ascribe responsibility depending on the reasons behind the agents' lack of knowledge. People judge agents responsible for the bad outcome they caused when they could have easily predicted the consequences of their actions but did not care to acquire the relevant information. However, when this information was hard to acquire, people are less likely to judge them responsible.

multidisciplinary sciences
Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration

Yahang Qi,Bernhard Schölkopf,Zhijing Jin

2024-11-06

Abstract:As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems increasingly influence decision-making across various fields, the need to attribute responsibility for undesirable outcomes has become essential, though complicated by the complex interplay between humans and AI. Existing attribution methods based on actual causality and Shapley values tend to disproportionately blame agents who contribute more to an outcome and rely on real-world measures of blameworthiness that may misalign with responsible AI standards. This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems, measuring overall blameworthiness while employing counterfactual reasoning to account for agents' expected epistemic levels. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.

Artificial Intelligence,Human-Computer Interaction,Applications
Asymmetrical attributions for approach versus avoidance behavior

Tobias Greitemeyer,Bernard Weiner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203255766

Abstract:Five studies examined responsibility inferences and/or person and situation attributions in positively versus negatively valenced motivational contexts. In Experiment 1, participants received information about a teaching assistant who was promised a reward or threatened with a punishment when asked for compliance with a requested transgression. The teaching assistant was perceived as more responsible for complying given the positive than the negative incentive. This finding was replicated in Experiment 2 using different vignettes and incentives. Experiment 3 revealed that the effect of incentive valence on perceived responsibility for compliance remains significant when statistically controlling for perceived compliance rates. Experiment 4 then demonstrated that there are not only greater responsibility judgments given a positive than a negative incentive but also greater dispositional attributions. Finally, Experiment 5 revealed that a similar incentive valence effect is found in other appetitive versus aversive motivational contexts. Theoretical explanations of this phenomenon are discussed.
Actual Causality and Responsibility Attribution in Decentralized Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes

Stelios Triantafyllou,Adish Singla,Goran Radanovic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.00302

2022-08-09

Abstract:Actual causality and a closely related concept of responsibility attribution are central to accountable decision making. Actual causality focuses on specific outcomes and aims to identify decisions (actions) that were critical in realizing an outcome of interest. Responsibility attribution is complementary and aims to identify the extent to which decision makers (agents) are responsible for this outcome. In this paper, we study these concepts under a widely used framework for multi-agent sequential decision making under uncertainty: decentralized partially observable Markov decision processes (Dec-POMDPs). Following recent works in RL that show correspondence between POMDPs and Structural Causal Models (SCMs), we first establish a connection between Dec-POMDPs and SCMs. This connection enables us to utilize a language for describing actual causality from prior work and study existing definitions of actual causality in Dec-POMDPs. Given that some of the well-known definitions may lead to counter-intuitive actual causes, we introduce a novel definition that more explicitly accounts for causal dependencies between agents' actions. We then turn to responsibility attribution based on actual causality, where we argue that in ascribing responsibility to an agent it is important to consider both the number of actual causes in which the agent participates, as well as its ability to manipulate its own degree of responsibility. Motivated by these arguments we introduce a family of responsibility attribution methods that extends prior work, while accounting for the aforementioned considerations. Finally, through a simulation-based experiment, we compare different definitions of actual causality and responsibility attribution methods. The empirical results demonstrate the qualitative difference between the considered definitions of actual causality and their impact on attributed responsibility.

Artificial Intelligence
The Catch-22 of Forgetfulness: Responsibility for Mental Mistakes

Zachary C. Irving,Samuel Murray,Aaron Glasser,Kristina Krasich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2022.2157031

2023-01-19

Australasian Journal of Philosophy

Abstract:Attribution theorists assume that character information informs judgments of blame. But there is disagreement over why. One camp holds that character information is a fundamental determinant of blame. Another camp holds that character information merely provides evidence about the mental states and processes that determine responsibility. We argue for a two-channel view , where character simultaneously has fundamental and evidential effects on blame. In two large factorial studies ( n = 495), participants rate whether someone is blameworthy when he makes a mistake (burns a cake or misses a bus stop). Although mental state inferences predict blame judgments, character information does not. Using mediation analyses, we find that character information influences responsibility via two channels (Studies 3–4; n = 447), which are sensitive to different kinds of information (Study 5; n = 149). On the one hand, forgetfulness increases judgments of responsibility, because mental lapses manifest an objectionable character flaw. On the other hand, forgetfulness decreases judgments of state control, which in turn decreases responsibility judgments. These two channels cancel out, which is why we find no aggregate effect of forgetfulness on responsibility. Our results challenge several fundamental assumptions about the role of character information in moral judgment, including that good character typically mitigates blame.
On Blame Attribution for Accountable Multi-Agent Sequential Decision Making

Stelios Triantafyllou,Adish Singla,Goran Radanovic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.11927

IF: 14.4

2021-07-26

Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:Blame attribution is one of the key aspects of accountable decision making, as it provides means to quantify the responsibility of an agent for a decision making outcome. In this paper, we study blame attribution in the context of cooperative multi-agent sequential decision making. As a particular setting of interest, we focus on cooperative decision making formalized by Multi-Agent Markov Decision Processes (MMDPs), and we analyze different blame attribution methods derived from or inspired by existing concepts in cooperative game theory. We formalize desirable properties of blame attribution in the setting of interest, and we analyze the relationship between these properties and the studied blame attribution methods. Interestingly, we show that some of the well known blame attribution methods, such as Shapley value, are not performance-incentivizing, while others, such as Banzhaf index, may over-blame agents. To mitigate these value misalignment and fairness issues, we introduce a novel blame attribution method, unique in the set of properties it satisfies, which trade-offs explanatory power (by under-blaming agents) for the aforementioned properties. We further show how to account for uncertainty about agents' decision making policies, and we experimentally: a) validate the qualitative properties of the studied blame attribution methods, and b) analyze their robustness to uncertainty.
Culpable Control and Counterfactual Reasoning in the Psychology of Blame

Mark D. Alicke,Justin Buckingham,Ethan Zell,Teresa Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208321594

IF: 4.56

2008-07-03

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Abstract:Many counterfactual reasoning studies assess how people ascribe blame for harmful actions. By itself, the knowledge that a harmful outcome could easily have been avoided does not predict blame. In three studies, the authors showed that an outcome's mutability influences blame and related judgments when it is coupled with a basis for negative evaluations. Study 1 showed that mutability influenced blame and compensation judgments when a physician was negligent but not when the physician took reasonable precautions to prevent harm. Study 2 showed that this finding was attenuated when the victim contributed to his own demise. In Study 3, whether an actor just missed arriving on time to see his dying mother or had no chance to see her influenced his blameworthiness when his reason for being late provided a basis for negative evaluations but made no difference when there was a positive reason for the delay. These findings clarify the conditions under which an outcome's mutability is likely to influence blame and related attributions.

psychology, social
What to Blame? Self-Serving Attribution Bias with Multi-Dimensional Uncertainty

Alexander Coutts,Leonie Gerhards,Zahra Murad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueae005

2024-03-05

The Economic Journal

Abstract:Abstract People often receive feedback influenced by external factors, yet little is known about how this affects self-serving biases. Our theoretical model explores how multi-dimensional uncertainty allows additional degrees of freedom for self-serving bias. In our Primary experiment, feedback combining an individual’s ability and a teammate’s ability leads to biased belief updating. However, in a Follow-up with a random fundamental replacing the teammate, unbiased updating occurs. A Validation experiment shows belief distortion is greater when outcomes originate from human actions. Overall, our experiments highlight how multi-dimensional environments can enable self-serving biases.

economics
Effect of Relative Status on Responsibility Attributions in Human–robot Collaboration: Mediating Role of Sense of Responsibility and Moderating Role of Power Distance Orientation

Xin Lei,Pei-Luen Patrick Rau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106820

IF: 9.9

2021-01-01

Computers in Human Behavior

Abstract:This study investigates the effect of relative status on responsibility attributions in situations in which people and a humanoid robot collectively contribute to an outcome. A 3 x 2 experiment was conducted using the robot status (supervisor, peer, and subordinate) and the attribution target (robot or self) as independent variables. Fifty-four students from a university campus participated in the experiment. The participants were randomly assigned into three groups with balanced gender. In the experiment, the participants and the humanoid robot Nao cooperated on joint tasks of product poster selection. Subsequently, the participants were instructed to allocate the causal responsibility between themselves and the humanoid robot for a specified dyadic performance success or failure. Results show that the relative status moderated participants' self-serving biases. Participants who cooperated with a supervisor robot claimed credit for dyadic success but blamed the robot for dyadic failure, whereas participants who cooperated with a peer or subordinate robot claimed both credit for dyadic success and blame for dyadic failure. In addition, the participants' sense of responsibility mediated the relationships between relative status and responsibility attributions. As the status of the humanoid robot increased, participants felt less responsible for the task performance; consequently, they tended to attribute the outcome more to the robot and less to themselves. Finally, the participants' power distance orientation moderated the relationships between relative status and responsibility attributions, namely that the relationships were stronger for participants with higher power distance orientation.
Should I Blame the Human or the Robot? Attribution Within a Human–Robot Group

Lei Xin,Rau Pei-Luen Patrick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00645-w

IF: 3.802

2020-01-01

International Journal of Social Robotics

Abstract:The present research studies the attribution of credit for success and attribution of blame for failure in a human–robot group. In the experiment, two participants of the same gender and a robot composed of a group that cooperated to solve the desert survival problem. Each group completed two tasks whose outcomes were manipulated: one task succeeded, and the other task failed. The participants were asked to attribute the credit of success and blame of failure to the group members, including the robot member, the human member, and the participants themselves. The results are as follows. First, participants attributed more credit and less blame to the robot member than to themselves. Second, participants attributed less blame to the human member than to themselves, and no significant difference was observed in the attribution of credit between them. Third, the robot member was more blamed than the human member, whereas they received similar levels of credit. Finally, compared with male participants, female participants assigned more credit and less blame to the robot member. The findings in this paper shed some light on the allocation of responsibility based on outcomes in human–robot groups.
Personal and Collective Culpability Judgment

Melody Manchi Chao,Zhi-Xue Zhang,Chi-Yue Chiu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022108323788

2008-01-01

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Abstract:This research takes a functional perspective and examines the psychological processes underlying personal and collective culpability judgments in European Americans and Chinese in mainland China (Experiment 1), and in European Americans and Asian Americans (Experiment 2). Results indicate that when determining personal culpability for negative events, all three cultural groups consider behavioral causality. However, Chinese and Asian American participants tend to make more extreme collective culpability judgments than do European American participants. Furthermore, activating the goal of delegated deterrence strengthens Chinese and Asian American participants' collective culpability judgments only, whereas activating the goal of group harmony increases the strength of collective culpability in all three cultural groups. These findings suggest that collective culpability serves different functions in different cultural contexts.
Insight into the process of responsibility judgment of an audit failure

Siew H. Chan,Qian Song

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijaim-06-2020-0083

2020-09-01

International Journal of Accounting and Information Management

Abstract:Purpose This study tests a research model for promoting understanding of the responsibility attribution process. Design/methodology/approach A between-subjects experiment was conducted to test the hypotheses. Findings The results reveal that counterfactual thinking about how a system failure could have been prevented moderates the effect of cause of misstatement on perceived control. Counterfactual thinking about how an audit failure could have been avoided also moderates the effect of perceived control on causal account. Additionally, causal account mediates the effect of perceived control on responsibility judgment of an audit firm. Inclusion of audit firm size and auditor systems competency as control variables in the hypothesis tests and as grouping variables in the invariance tests does not alter the model results. Research limitations/implications Research can guide the audit profession on development of innovative strategies for detecting fraud to protect the interests of decision-makers. Strategies can also be devised to prompt users to consider relevant factors to enhance their ability to arrive at an accurate assessment of an audit firm’s responsibility for an audit failure. Practical implications Regulators may need to address whether availability of advanced data analytic tools increases the audit firms’ responsibility for presenting convincing evidence suggesting due diligence in the audit work in the event of an audit failure. Originality/value This study examines the process variables influencing responsibility judgment of an audit firm. Elicitation of counterfactual thoughts before the participants responded to the questions measuring the process and dependent variables facilitates discernment of the intensity of counterfactual thinking on the variables examined in the research model.
Interpersonal coordination enhances brain-to-brain synchronization and influences responsibility attribution and reward allocation in social cooperation

Can Zhou,Xiaojun Cheng,Chengwei Liu,Peng Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119028

IF: 5.7

2022-05-01

NeuroImage

Abstract:Fair distribution of resources matters to both individual interests and group harmony during social cooperation. Different allocation rules, including equity- and equality-based rules, have been widely discussed in reward allocation research; however, it remains unclear whether and how individuals' cooperative manner, such as interpersonal coordination, influence their subsequent responsibility attribution and reward allocation. Here, 46 dyads conducted a time estimation task-either synergistically (the coordination group) or solely (the control group)-while their brain activities were measured using a functional near-infrared spectroscopy hyperscanning approach. Dyads in the coordination group showed higher behavioral synchrony and higher interpersonal brain synchronization (IBS) in the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) during the time estimation task than those in the control group. They also showed a more egalitarian tendency of responsibility attribution for the task outcome. More importantly, dyads in the coordination group who had higher IBS in the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC) were more inclined to make egalitarian reward allocations, and this effect was mediated by responsibility attribution. Our findings elucidate the influence of interpersonal coordination on reward allocation and the critical role of the prefrontal cortex in these processes.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,neurosciences,neuroimaging
When company decisions harm or help the environment: the influence of social context and affective state on moral and causal responsibility attributions

Kiara Roth,Kai Kaspar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01915-0

IF: 2.8

2021-06-15

Current Psychology

Abstract:Abstract Holding companies accountable for their decisions’ environmental side effects becomes increasingly important in the light of current debates on the climate crisis. The present study investigated a young sample’s ( n = 925) causal and moral responsibility attributions to a company’s manager and their subordinate employee, who were either young or middle-aged. The agents jointly made a profit-oriented decision which either harmed or helped the environment. Results were analyzed with respect to the valence of the side effect, the agents’ social role, the agents’ age group, and participants’ affective state. We successfully replicated findings from prior studies, showing that more intention and moral responsibility is ascribed to the manager in case of a negative side effect than in case of a positive side effect, and that the manager deserves more blame for negative side effects than the employee, whereas the employee deserves more praise for positive side effects. Additionally, responsibility attributions varied with the agents’ age group, participants’ positive and negative affective state, and participants’ gender. By incorporating these hitherto neglected factors, the study complements existing theories of responsibility attribution and intergroup perception. The findings further highlight the contribution of affective mechanisms as driving factors of responsibility attributions. Combining moral responsibility research, intergroup research, and affective measures promises to foster the understanding of how and to whom people ascribe blame, praise, and causal responsibility for environmental consequences.

psychology, multidisciplinary
The contribution of sensory information asymmetry and bias of attribution to egocentric tendencies in effort comparison tasks

Caedyn Stinson,Igor Kagan,Arezoo Pooresmaeili

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1304372

IF: 3.8

2024-04-05

Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract:When comparing themselves with others, people often evaluate their own behaviors more favorably. This egocentric tendency is often categorized as a bias of attribution, with favorable self-evaluation resulting from differing explanations of one's own behavior and that of others. However, studies on information availability in social contexts offer an alternative explanation, ascribing egocentric biases to the inherent informational asymmetries between performing an action and merely observing it. Since biases of attribution and availability often co-exist and interact with each other, it is not known whether they are both necessary for the egocentric biases to emerge. In this study, we used a design that allowed us to directly compare the contribution of these two distinct sources of bias to judgements about the difficulty of an effortful task. Participants exhibited no attribution bias as judgements made for themselves did not differ from those made for others. Importantly, however, participants perceived the tasks they actively performed to be harder than the tasks they observed, and this bias was magnified as the overall task difficulty increased. These findings suggest that information asymmetries inherent to the difference between actively performing a task and observing it can drive egocentric biases in effort evaluations on their own and without a contribution from biases of attribution.

psychology, multidisciplinary
A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving.

Bernard Weiner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.2.186

IF: 8.46

1980-01-01

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract:Examined the relations of causal attributions and affect to judgments of help-giving in a total of 280 undergraduates in 6 experiments. The influence of 3 dimensions of causality (locus, stability, and control) on judgments concerning the lending of class notes was evaluated. Ratings of help were lowest when the cause of the need was internal to the actor and controllable (e.g., lack of effort). It is suggested that ascriptions to internal controllable factors maximized negative affect (disgust and anger) and promoted avoidance behavior. However, attributions to uncontrollable factors (e.g., ability or teacher shortcomings) were anticipated to generate positive affect (sympathy) and give rise to approach behavior (help). These hypotheses and an attributional model of helping were investigated using a simulational judgment paradigm with both correlational and experimental designs and scenarios describing a drunk or a disabled individual in need of aid. ANOVA indicated the existence of a temporal sequence of attribution-affect-action in which attributions guide feelings, but emotional reactions provide the motor and direction for behavior. (39 ref)

psychology, social
Effort-based decision making in joint action: Evidence of a sense of fairness

Marcell Székely,Stephen Butterfill,John Michael

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104601

IF: 3.532

2024-05-01

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Abstract:As humans, we are unique with respect to the flexibility and scope of our cooperative behavior. In recent years, considerable research has been devoted to investigating the psychological mechanisms which support this. One key finding is that people frequently calibrate their effort level to match a cooperation partner's effort costs - although little is known about exactly why they do so. We hypothesized that people calibrate with the ultimate goal of attracting and keeping good collaboration partners, with the proximal psychological motive being a preference for fairness. Across four lab-based, pre-registered experiments (N = 142), we found support for these hypotheses, and distinguished them from plausible alternative explanations, such as the conjecture that people may use their partner's effort costs as information to infer the value of opportunities afforded by their environment, and the conjecture that people may calibrate their effort investment in order to appear competent. Statement of relevance As humans, we have unique skills and motivations for acting together. Crucially, acting together requires effort and a growing body of empirical work on cooperation and joint action suggests that people calibrate their effort level to match that of a partner's effort costs - although little is known about the mechanisms leading them to do so. Our findings show that people calibrate their effort investment in joint action with the ultimate goal of attracting and keeping good collaboration partners and that the psychological mechanism that drives them to do so is a preference for fairness. These findings provide a valuable addition to existing research on the sense of fairness, providing evidence that the sense of fairness leads people not only to distribute resources according to individual effort costs but to distribute effort costs according to the expected reward distribution as well.

psychology, social
Effects of Manipulation on Attributions of Causation, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility

Dylan Murray,Tania Lombrozo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12338

IF: 2.617

2016-02-11

Cognitive Science

Abstract:If someone brings about an outcome without intending to, is she causally and morally responsible for it? What if she acts intentionally, but as the result of manipulation by another agent? Previous research has shown that an agent's mental states can affect attributions of causal and moral responsibility to that agent, but little is known about what effect one agent's mental states can have on attributions to another agent. In Experiment 1, we replicate findings that manipulation lowers attributions of responsibility to manipulated agents. Experiments 2-7 isolate which features of manipulation drive this effect, a crucial issue for both philosophical debates about free will and attributions of responsibility in situations involving social influence more generally. Our results suggest that "bypassing" a manipulated agent's mental states generates the greatest reduction in responsibility, and we explain our results in terms of the effects that one agent's mental states can have on the counterfactual relations between another agent and an outcome.

psychology, experimental

[Hematological complications of alcohol abuse].

Predicting responsibility judgments from dispositional inferences and causal attributions

Effects of Task Structure and Attribution Target on Responsibility Attributions in Human–robot Interaction

The importance of epistemic intentions in ascription of responsibility

Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration

Asymmetrical attributions for approach versus avoidance behavior

Actual Causality and Responsibility Attribution in Decentralized Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes

The Catch-22 of Forgetfulness: Responsibility for Mental Mistakes

On Blame Attribution for Accountable Multi-Agent Sequential Decision Making

Culpable Control and Counterfactual Reasoning in the Psychology of Blame

What to Blame? Self-Serving Attribution Bias with Multi-Dimensional Uncertainty

Effect of Relative Status on Responsibility Attributions in Human–robot Collaboration: Mediating Role of Sense of Responsibility and Moderating Role of Power Distance Orientation

Should I Blame the Human or the Robot? Attribution Within a Human–Robot Group

Personal and Collective Culpability Judgment

Insight into the process of responsibility judgment of an audit failure

Interpersonal coordination enhances brain-to-brain synchronization and influences responsibility attribution and reward allocation in social cooperation

When company decisions harm or help the environment: the influence of social context and affective state on moral and causal responsibility attributions

The contribution of sensory information asymmetry and bias of attribution to egocentric tendencies in effort comparison tasks

A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving.

Effort-based decision making in joint action: Evidence of a sense of fairness

Effects of Manipulation on Attributions of Causation, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility