Abstract:Introduction: Robots are being introduced into increasingly social environments. As these robots become more ingrained in social spaces, they will have to abide by the social norms that guide human interactions. At times, however, robots will violate norms and perhaps even deceive their human interaction partners. This study provides some of the first evidence for how people perceive and evaluate robot deception, especially three types of deception behaviors theorized in the technology ethics literature: External state deception (cues that intentionally misrepresent or omit details from the external world: e.g., lying), Hidden state deception (cues designed to conceal or obscure the presence of a capacity or internal state the robot possesses), and Superficial state deception (cues that suggest a robot has some capacity or internal state that it lacks). Methods: Participants (N = 498) were assigned to read one of three vignettes, each corresponding to one of the deceptive behavior types. Participants provided responses to qualitative and quantitative measures, which examined to what degree people approved of the behaviors, perceived them to be deceptive, found them to be justified, and believed that other agents were involved in the robots' deceptive behavior. Results: Participants rated hidden state deception as the most deceptive and approved of it the least among the three deception types. They considered external state and superficial state deception behaviors to be comparably deceptive; but while external state deception was generally approved, superficial state deception was not. Participants in the hidden state condition often implicated agents other than the robot in the deception. Conclusion: This study provides some of the first evidence for how people perceive and evaluate the deceptiveness of robot deception behavior types. This study found that people people distinguish among the three types of deception behaviors and see them as differently deceptive and approve of them differently. They also see at least the hidden state deception as stemming more from the designers than the robot itself.

Can robot advisers encourage honesty?: Considering the impact of rule, identity, and role-based moral advice

I Need Your Advice... Human Perceptions of Robot Moral Advising Behaviors

The corruptive force of AI-generated advice

Robot Gaze Behavior Affects Honesty in Human-Robot Interaction

Toward Ethical Robotic Behavior in Human-Robot Interaction Scenarios

When in Rome: the Role of Culture &#x00026; Context in Adherence to Robot Recommendations

The Digital Siren's Call: Accepting Unethical AI Advice

Adults still can't resist: A social robot can induce normative conformity

If you Cheat, I Cheat: Cheating on a Collaborative Task with a Social Robot

Comparing Norm-Based and Role-Based Strategies for Robot Communication of Role-Grounded Moral Norms

Employees Adhere More to Unethical Instructions from Human Than AI Supervisors: Complementing Experimental Evidence with Machine Learning

Robotic Moment: the Influence Mechanism of Frequency of Socializing on Willingness to Interact with AI Robots

Will You Listen to a Robot? Effects of Robot Ability, Task Complexity, and Risk on Human Decision-Making

Corrupted by Algorithms? How AI-Generated and Human-Written Advice Shape (DIS)Honesty

The Emotional Dilemma: Influence of a Human-like Robot on Trust and Cooperation

Robot-stated limitations but not intentions promote user assistance

A study on the influence of service robots' level of anthropomorphism on the willingness of users to follow their recommendations

“Don’t Get Distracted!”: The Role of Social Robots’ Interaction Style on Users’ Cognitive Performance, Acceptance, and Non-Compliant Behavior

Human perceptions of social robot deception behaviors: an exploratory analysis

The Dark Side of Ethical Robots

People's judgments of humans and robots in a classic moral dilemma