Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41315423›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Evaluating the morality of violence against robots.

J Archer, M Wilks, K Sommer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

J ArcherSchool of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. J.Archer-1@sms.ed.ac.uk.
M WilksSchool of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
K SommerSchool of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study explored human moral perceptions of robots and examined how these perceptions vary based on the anthropomorphic features of the agent, the type of harm inflicted, and how the robot reacts to aversive stimuli. An online survey comprised first-year psychology students (N = 234) and participants recruited via social media (N = 63). Participants watched four videos depicting harmful or aversive scenarios containing a humanoid (NAO) or machine-like robot (Roomba). Scenarios included turning the robot off, physically abusing the robot, verbally abusing the robot and socially ostracizing the robot. The robots' protest behaviors towards the harmful or aversive scenarios were either physical protest, verbal protest, a combination of verbal and physical protests, or no protest at all. The humanoid robot received significantly more moral concern than the machine-like robot in the social ostracism and turn-off scenarios. However, there was no difference in moral concern observed between the humanoid and machine-like robot in the physical and verbal abuse scenarios. Some differences between scenarios were agent dependent. As predicted, both the machine-like and humanoid robot received significantly more moral concern in the physical abuse scenario than in all other scenarios. Finally, despite the hypothesized influence of protest on attributions of moral concern, no significant impact of protest was present. The present study provides a solid foundation for future research exploring the psychological and moral implications of robot mistreatment.

Indexed as

MoralsRoboticsViolenceAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41315423
PMCPMC12669583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.