ArticleScientific reports2026
Stability of value perception: minimal influence of framing on moral attributions to a humanoid robot.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As robots are becoming collaborators in various domains, understanding if humans perceive them as moral and intentional agents is pivotal. This study investigated the malleability of human attributions of value alignment and intentionality to a humanoid robot (iCub). We designed an experiment to test whether brief experimental framing strategies could influence these perceptions. Three experimental groups were exposed to different strategies regarding background information concerning the robot’s moral-decision making abilities: a no Information group; a verbal description group; and a social interaction (or video) group, where the robot reacted to moral decision-making movie scenes. Our results showed that our manipulations did not produce the expected differences in perceived robot–human value alignment or intentionality, suggesting that participants’ initial impressions of the robot are robust and not easily shifted by brief experimental framing. Furthermore, attributions of intentionality remained generally high regardless of the informational strategy employed. On the contrary, our exploratory findings indicate a small, significant correlation between participants’ own pre-existing moral orientations and their perceptions of the robot’s values. These findings suggest that moral impressions of complex artificial agents are less malleable than anticipated. They highlight that pre-existing moral frameworks shape how humans interpret artificial agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.