Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Anger Speaks Louder? Exploring the Effects of AI Nonverbal Emotional Cues on Human Decision Certainty in Moral Dilemmas

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A conversational AI that displays anger through animated chat balloons can push people toward reversing their moral decisions, according to a controlled experiment.

desk verdict A well-designed study of AI anger cues on moral decision certainty whose headline result rests on a dependent variable with an unstated and likely inconsistent sign convention—worth refereeing, but not citable until the RCS anchors are clarified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15834 v2 pith:RBC2SKFO submitted 2024-12-20 cs.HC

Chenyi Zhang , Zhenhao Zhang , Wei Zhang , Tian Zeng , Black Sun , Jian Zhao , Pengcheng An This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords AI-AssistedDecision-makingHuman-AICollaborationEmotionMoralDilemmasNonverbalemotionalcuesAniBalloonsDecisioncertaintyReversalShift
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that a conversational AI's nonverbal emotional display can change how certain people feel about a moral decision. In an online study, participants read a moral dilemma, chose a stance, and then heard an AI assistant argue the opposite side; for some groups the assistant's message was wrapped in animated anger or sadness chat balloons, and for a baseline group the same words appeared without emotion. The authors report that anger cues produced a significantly larger Reversal Certainty Shift, a score measuring how much participants' confidence moved toward the opposite of their first-round choice, than either the no-cue baseline or sadness cues, while sadness cues were not significantly different from baseline. If the finding holds, it means a subtle visual design choice, not the content of the AI's advice, can move people toward reconsidering their moral stance, with implications for deliberation support and for manipulative design.

What carries the argument

Three components carry the argument: Reversal Certainty Shift (RCS), a signed score $RCS=(-1)^n (x_2-x_1)$ that measures movement toward or away from the first-round decision; AniBalloons, animated chat-balloon cues that convey anger or sadness without changing the AI's words; and a devil's-advocate AI whose verbal response always argues against the participant's first choice. The RCS score is what turns raw confidence ratings into the reported reversal effect, and AniBalloons is what isolates emotion from content so that any effect can be attributed to the nonverbal cue.

What would settle it

Recode each participant's second-round certainty with a sign that reflects the final choice (e.g., positive when the final answer matches the original stance, negative when it flips), then rerun the group comparison. If anger no longer shows a positive reversal relative to baseline, or if the sign flips, the reported reversal effect is an artifact of the scoring convention. A direct audit of the excluded five participants' data would show whether their removal changes the conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an AI assistant expressing anger through animated chat balloons significantly increased Reversal Certainty Shift in moral dilemmas compared with a no-cue baseline ($M_{\text{AC}}=0.811$, $SD=0.123$ vs $M_{\text{Baseline}}=0.343$, $SD=0.113$, $p<0.01$) and compared with sadness cues ($M_{\text{SC}}=0.453$, $SD=0.123$, $p<0.05$), while sadness cues did not differ significantly from baseline. The paper also claims that gender and cue type interact: self-identified men perceived more AI influence under anger cues than under sadness cues, self-identified women perceived more under sadness cues than baseline, and the two genders' perceived influence ran in opposite directions for anger and sadness. The authors conclude that subtle nonverbal cues can shape human moral decision certainty and perceptions of AI influence even when the verbal content is identical.

Load-bearing premise

The effect depends on the Reversal Certainty Shift sign convention correctly scoring movement toward the opposite of the first-round decision; if the convention is inverted, the anger condition would show reinforcement rather than reversal, and the post-hoc removal of five participants assumes the groups remain comparable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Designers of conversational AI can shift decision outcomes without changing a single word of advice, merely by altering the emotional animation on the message bubble.
  • Anger cues are a candidate tool for reducing rigidity in deliberation, for example in creativity workshops or negotiation training, because they pushed participants toward the opposite stance.
  • The same mechanism is a manipulation risk: in customer service, sales, or political messaging, angry cues could pressure users into decisions they would not otherwise make.
  • Perceived influence and actual influence are separable; user self-report alone may not reveal whether an AI changed a decision.
  • Gender differences in perceived AI influence (males under anger, females under sadness) do not translate into gender differences in the actual reversal effect, so designers cannot rely on perception to predict behavior.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the AI always argued against the participant, the anger effect may be specific to adversarial or disagreement contexts; an obvious extension is to test supportive or neutral AI roles to see whether the cue alone, rather than opposition plus anger, drives the reversal.
  • The paper does not measure whether a reversal shift improves moral reasoning; if RCS is used as a design goal, future work should test decision quality, reflection depth, or downstream behavior.
  • The gender-by-emotion pattern in perceived influence suggests stereotype-consistent expectations may color how people report AI influence; measuring stereotype endorsement directly would test that mechanism.
  • A direct check of the RCS sign convention against a simpler 'did the final choice flip' outcome would clarify whether the reported result is about reversal or about reduced certainty generally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports an online experiment with 147 completions (142 after exclusions) in which participants faced moral dilemmas and received an AI assistant's opposing verbal response with either no nonverbal cue, an anger AniBalloon cue, or a sadness AniBalloon cue. The central outcome is Reversal Certainty Shift (RCS), defined in Eq. (1), which the authors interpret as movement toward reversing the first-round decision. The headline claim is that anger cues significantly increase RCS relative to both the baseline and sadness cues (Section 4.2: AC M=0.811 vs. baseline M=0.343, p<0.01; AC vs. SC M=0.453, p<0.05). Secondary claims concern gender differences in perceived AI influence on moral thinking. The paper concludes that subtle nonverbal emotional cues can shape moral decision certainty and discusses design and ethical implications.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper is a worthwhile empirical contribution to human-AI interaction and affective computing: it demonstrates that a lightweight, language-independent nonverbal manipulation can shift decision certainty in moral dilemmas, and the gender interaction on perceived influence is thought-provoking. The study has clear strengths: the AniBalloons stimuli were validated in prior work, the verbal responses were held constant across conditions, the manipulation check indicates that the intended emotions were perceived, and the limitations section is candid. However, the bespoke RCS measure is the linchpin of the main claim, and its sign convention is internally inconsistent as written. Until that inconsistency is resolved and the analysis is re-expressed with an unambiguous directional measure, the headline result cannot be interpreted as evidence of reversal rather than reinforcement. The secondary findings about perceived influence are less affected, but they also need small clarifications in the statistical reporting.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3.2, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The sign convention for RCS is internally inconsistent, and this is load-bearing for the paper's central claim. Equation (1) defines RCS = (-1)^n (x2 - x1) with n=0 for an initial 'Acceptable' decision, so for n=0 any increase in the rated value (x2 > x1) yields positive RCS. The interpretation text states that RCS > 0 means certainty shifted toward reversing the first-round decision, but the worked example in Eq. (2) uses n=0, x1=-3, x2=-1 and calls RCS=2 a shift 'away from the first-round decision.' If x is an acceptability scale anchored at -3 = completely unacceptable and +3 = completely acceptable, then x1=-3 contradicts an initial 'Acceptable' choice. If x is instead a certainty scale, moving from -3 to -1 is an increase in certainty that is consistent with reinforcing the initial 'Acceptable' choice, not reversing it. Under either reading, the example does not establish that positive RCS means reversal. The reported AC mean of 0.811 in Section 4.2 could therefore reflect reinforcement rather than reversal, which would invert the theoretical interpretation. Please specify the exact rating question and its anchors, correct the worked example, and re-analyze the data with a signed measure that unambiguously codes movement toward the opposite decision.
  2. [Section 4.1] The exclusion of five participants is reported only by participant ID, without stating how the exclusions were distributed across the three conditions, whether the exclusion criterion was pre-specified, or whether the main conclusions survive when these participants are retained. Excluding participants who fail a manipulation check is defensible in principle, but if the exclusions fall unevenly across conditions, the group comparisons in Section 4.2 could be biased. Please report the per-condition exclusion counts and provide a sensitivity analysis that includes the excluded participants.
  3. [Section 4.2] The statistical reporting for the RCS analysis needs clarification. The values labeled SD (e.g., AC SD=0.123 on a -3 to +3 scale) are implausibly small for raw standard deviations given the sample size, which suggests they are standard errors or estimated marginal means; Figure 4's error bars are described as 95% confidence intervals. Relatedly, the scenario main effect is reported as F(3,396), which implies a repeated-measures structure, but the paper does not state whether RCS was pooled across the four scenarios for each participant or modeled with participant as a random effect. Please clarify the units, the error-bar definition, and the exact mixed-model specification used to obtain the reported F statistics and p-values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3.2, Manipulation Check] The scale is described as 'ranging from strongly disagree (3) to strongly agree (3)'; this should presumably read -3 to 3.
  2. [Section 4.3.1] The interaction between gender and nonverbal emotional cues is reported as F(3,128)=5.522; for a two-way ANCOVA with three gender categories and three cue conditions, the interaction degrees of freedom do not match this value. Please verify and correct the reported degrees of freedom.
  3. [Section 3.2] The text says 'we chose two scenarios' but then lists four scenario versions; this wording should be adjusted to clarify that there are two dilemma stories, each with a proscriptive-norm version and a prescriptive-norm version.
  4. [Section 5.2] The discussion states that 'the reversal effect of AC is the same for participants of both genders,' but Section 4.2 does not report a gender-by-cue interaction on RCS. Either report that analysis or soften the claim to avoid overstating what the data show.
  5. [Figure 4 and Figure 5] The figures show significance stars and error bars, but the caption does not state whether the plotted values are estimated marginal means and whether error bars are standard errors or confidence intervals; adding this information would improve interpretability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central claim is an empirical group contrast on a measured outcome, and the self-citations to AniBalloons are independently supported by the in-study manipulation check.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical HCI user study, not a derivation chain. The central claim (anger cues increase Reversal Certainty Shift relative to baseline) rests on a randomized three-group comparison of a measured dependent variable, RCS, computed from participants' own certainty ratings via Eq. (1); no parameter is fitted to the conclusion and no independent variable is constructed from the outcome. The only notable self-citations are to the authors' prior AniBalloons work ([1,2]) used to justify the nonverbal stimuli. This self-citation is not load-bearing for the main result, because Section 4.1 reports an in-study manipulation check showing significant group differences in perceived anger and sadness (e.g., F(2,139)=9.383, p<0.001), independently confirming that the cues were perceived as intended. The post-hoc exclusion of five participants and the internal-sign quibble about Eq. (2) are measurement-validity concerns, not circular reasoning: the RCS sign convention is a definitional choice that could be wrong, but it does not make the anger-versus-baseline contrast true by construction. Hence no circular step rises to the threshold of Eq. X = Eq. Y or fitted-input-called-prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard self-report measurement assumptions and on the validity of the AniBalloons stimuli, both of which are partially tested through the manipulation check. The main unverified premise is that the RCS metric correctly captures reversal rather than reinforcement.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Self-reported certainty on a 7-point scale reflects the psychological construct of decision certainty.
    The RCS measure is computed from two self-reported certainty ratings, so the entire analysis depends on the validity of this assumption.
  • domain assumption The AniBalloon animations reliably convey the intended emotions of anger and sadness to participants.
    The manipulation check attempts to verify this, but participants who failed the check were excluded, implying that the assumption is not universally satisfied.
  • domain assumption The LLM-generated opposing responses are effectively identical in content across conditions except for the nonverbal cue.
    The authors state the responses are consistent across groups and without emotion, but the responses are generated by ChatGPT-4o and may vary in subtle ways that could confound the results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anger Speaks Louder? Exploring the Effects of AI Nonverbal Emotional Cues on Human Decision Certainty in Moral Dilemmas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RBC2SKFO

@misc{pith2026241215834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anger Speaks Louder? Exploring the Effects of AI Nonverbal Emotional Cues on Human Decision Certainty in Moral Dilemmas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RBC2SKFO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15834}
}
read the original abstract

Exploring moral dilemmas allows individuals to navigate moral complexity, where a reversal in decision certainty, shifting toward the opposite of one's initial choice, could reflect open-mindedness and less rigidity. This study probes how nonverbal emotional cues from conversational agents could influence decision certainty in moral dilemmas. While existing research heavily focused on verbal aspects of human-agent interaction, we investigated the impact of agents expressing anger and sadness towards the moral situations through animated chat balloons. We compared these with a baseline where agents offered same responses without nonverbal cues. Results show that agents displaying anger significantly caused reversal shifts in decision certainty. The interaction between participant gender and agents' nonverbal emotional cues significantly affects participants' perception of AI's influence. These findings reveal that even subtly altering agents' nonverbal cues may impact human moral decisions, presenting both opportunities to leverage these effects for positive outcomes and ethical risks for future human-AI systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15834 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Task Process: Each user is asked to read the scenario and make decisions in two rounds with an AI assistant. In the second [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. AniBalloons used in this experiment. The left-side column features two animations representing anger, while the right-side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. User interface example for decision-making with the AI assistant with an emotional anger cue expresses anger. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of nonverbal emotional cues on Reversal Certainty Shift(RCS). Significant differences are indicated between groups(*: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of nonverbal emotional cues on the AI assistant’s influence on participants’ moral thinking. Significant differences are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pengcheng An, Chaoyu Zhang, Haichen Gao, Ziqi Zhou, Linghao Du, Che Yan, Yage Xiao, and Jian Zhao. 2023. Affective Affordance of Message Balloon Animations: An Early Exploration of AniBalloons. In Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 138–143

    2023

  2. [2]

    Pengcheng An, Chaoyu Zhang, Haichen Gao, Ziqi Zhou, Yage Xiao, and Jian Zhao. 2024. AniBalloons: Animated chat balloons as affective augmentation for social messaging and chatbot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (2024), 103365

    2024

  3. [3]

    Pengcheng An, Ziqi Zhou, Qing Liu, Yifei Yin, Linghao Du, Da-Yuan Huang, and Jian Zhao. 2022. VibEmoji: Exploring user-authoring multi-modal emoticons in social communication. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2022

  4. [4]

    Pengcheng An, Jiawen Stefanie Zhu, Zibo Zhang, Yifei Yin, Qingyuan Ma, Che Yan, Linghao Du, and Jian Zhao. 2024. EmoWear: Exploring Emotional Teasers for Voice Message Interaction on Smartwatches. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2024

  5. [5]

    Toshiki Aoki, Rintaro Chujo, Katsufumi Matsui, Saemi Choi, and Ari Hautasaari. 2022. Emoballoon-conveying emotional arousal in text chats with speech balloons. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Arthur Aron, Elaine N Aron, and Danny Smollan. 1992. Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of personality and social psychology 63, 4 (1992), 596

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    Karina R Arutyunova, Yuri I Alexandrov, and Marc D Hauser. 2016. Sociocultural influences on moral judgments: East–west, male–female, and young–old. Frontiers in psychology 7 (2016), 1334

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Carla Bagnoli. 2011. Morality and the Emotions . Oxford University Press

    work page 2011

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Martina Baránková, Júlia Halamová, Mária Gablíková, Jana Koróniová, and Bronislava Strnádelová. 2019. Analysis of spontaneous facial expression of compassion elicited by the video stimulus: Facial expression of compassion. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie 63, 1 (2019), 26–41

    2019

  2. [10]

    L. F. Barrett and E. Bliss-Moreau. 2009. She’s emotional. He’s having a bad day: Attributional explanations for emotion stereotypes. Emotion (Washington, D.C.) 9, 5 (2009), 649–658

    2009

  3. [11]

    Reuben Binns, Max Van Kleek, Michael Veale, Ulrik Lyngs, Jun Zhao, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2018. ’It’s Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage’ Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14

    2018

  4. [12]

    Hello AI

    Carrie J Cai, Samantha Winter, David Steiner, Lauren Wilcox, and Michael Terry. 2019. " Hello AI": uncovering the onboarding needs of medical practitioners for human-AI collaborative decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–24

    2019

  5. [13]

    Cartwright and C

    T. Cartwright and C. Nancarrow. 2022. A Question of Gender: Gender classification in international research. International Journal of Market Research 64, 5 (2022), 575–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853221108663

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Shelly Chaiken. 1989. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. Unintended Thought: Limits of A wareness, Intention, and Control/Guilford (1989). 14 Chenyi Zhang et al

    1989

  7. [15]

    Guiming Hardy Chen, Shunian Chen, Ziche Liu, Feng Jiang, and Benyou Wang. 2024. Humans or llms as the judge? a study on judgement biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10669 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Qinyue Chen, Yuchun Yan, and Hyeon-Jeong Suk. 2021. Bubble coloring to visualize the speech emotion. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–6

    2021

  9. [17]

    Hao-Fei Cheng, Ruotong Wang, Zheng Zhang, Fiona O’connell, Terrance Gray, F Maxwell Harper, and Haiyi Zhu. 2019. Explaining decision-making algorithms through UI: Strategies to help non-expert stakeholders. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computin...

    2019

  10. [18]

    Saemi Choi and Kiyoharu Aizawa. 2019. Emotype: Expressing emotions by changing typeface in mobile messenger texting. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78 (2019), 14155–14172

    2019

  11. [19]

    Julia F Christensen, Albert Flexas, Margareta Calabrese, Nadine K Gut, and Antoni Gomila. 2014. Moral judgment reloaded: a moral dilemma validation study. Frontiers in psychology 5 (2014), 607

    2014

  12. [20]

    Julia F Christensen and Antoni Gomila. 2012. Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review.Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 36, 4 (2012), 1249–1264

    2012

  13. [21]

    Mark Coeckelbergh. 2010. Moral appearances: emotions, robots, and human morality. Ethics and Information Technology 12 (2010), 235–241

    2010

  14. [22]

    B. M. Craig and A. J. Lee. 2020. Stereotypes and structure in the interaction between facial emotional expression and sex characteristics. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 6, 2 (2020), 212–235

    2020

  15. [23]

    James R Detert, Linda Klebe Treviño, and Vicki L Sweitzer. 2008. Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: a study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of applied psychology 93, 2 (2008), 374

    2008

  16. [24]

    Michael Diehl and Wolfgang Stroebe. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of personality and social psychology 53, 3 (1987), 497

    1987

  17. [25]

    Charles A Doswell. 2004. Weather forecasting by humans—Heuristics and decision making. Weather and Forecasting 19, 6 (2004), 1115–1126

    2004

  18. [26]

    Julia Dressel and Hany Farid. 2018. The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science advances 4, 1 (2018), eaao5580

    2018

  19. [27]

    Eva Eigner and Thorsten Händler. 2024. Determinants of llm-assisted decision-making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17385 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nancy Eisenberg, TL Spinrad, A Sadovsky, M Killen, and J Smetana. 2006. Handbook of moral development

    2006

  21. [29]

    N Eisenberg, C Valiente, C Champion, and AG Miller. 2004. The Social Psychology of Good and Evil

    2004

  22. [30]

    Paul Ekman. 1992. Are there basic emotions? (1992)

    1992

  23. [31]

    Paul Ekman. 1992. An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & emotion 6, 3-4 (1992), 169–200

    1992

  24. [32]

    Bertram Gawronski. 2022. Moral impressions and presumed moral choices: Perceptions of how moral exemplars resolve moral dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 99 (2022), 104265

    2022

  25. [33]

    Bertram Gawronski, Joel Armstrong, Paul Conway, Rebecca Friesdorf, and Mandy Hütter. 2017. Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of personality and social psychology 113, 3 (2017), 343

    2017

  26. [34]

    Ezequiel Gleichgerrcht and Liane Young. 2013. Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PloS one 8, 4 (2013), e60418

    2013

  27. [35]

    Ben Green and Yiling Chen. 2019. The principles and limits of algorithm-in-the-loop decision making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–24

    2019

  28. [36]

    Joshua D Greene, Sylvia A Morelli, Kelly Lowenberg, Leigh E Nystrom, and Jonathan D Cohen. 2008. Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition 107, 3 (2008), 1144–1154

    2008

  29. [37]

    Joshua D Greene, R Brian Sommerville, Leigh E Nystrom, John M Darley, and Jonathan D Cohen. 2001. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293, 5537 (2001), 2105–2108

    2001

  30. [38]

    Kerry Hoffman and Carolyn Elwin. 2004. The relationship between critical thinking and confidence in decision making. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, The 22, 1 (2004), 8–12

    2004

  31. [39]

    Danique Jeurissen, Alexander T Sack, Alard Roebroeck, Brian E Russ, and Alvaro Pascual-Leone. 2014. TMS affects moral judgment, showing the role of DLPFC and TPJ in cognitive and emotional processing. Frontiers in neuroscience 8 (2014), 18

    2014

  32. [40]

    Mark Johnson. 2014. Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics . University of Chicago Press

    2014

  33. [41]

    Guy Kahane, Jim AC Everett, Brian D Earp, Lucius Caviola, Nadira S Faber, Molly J Crockett, and Julian Savulescu. 2018. Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological review 125, 2 (2018), 131

    2018

  34. [42]

    Xianxin Ke, Bin Cao, Jiaojiao Bai, Wenzhen Zhang, and Yujiao Zhu. 2020. An interactive system for humanoid robot SHFR-III. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 17, 2 (2020), 1729881420913787

    2020

  35. [43]

    Barbra Kingsley. 2011. Development and psychometric analysis of an inventory to measure moral imagination . Ph. D. Dissertation. Gonzaga University, Spokane, Wash

    2011

  36. [44]

    Michael Klenk. 2022. The influence of situational factors in sacrificial dilemmas on utilitarian moral judgments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 13, 3 (2022), 593–625

    2022

  37. [45]

    Lawrence Kohlberg. 1971. Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education . Center for Moral Education, Harvard University Cambridge

    1971

  38. [46]

    Lawrence Kohlberg. 1987. The psychology of moral development. Ethics 97, 2 (1987)

    1987

  39. [47]

    Anita Körner, Roland Deutsch, and Bertram Gawronski. 2020. Using the CNI model to investigate individual differences in moral dilemma judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 46, 9 (2020), 1392–1407. Anger Speaks Louder? Exploring the Effects of AI Nonverbal Emoti...

    2020

  40. [48]

    Sebastian Krügel, Andreas Ostermaier, and Matthias Uhl. 2023. ChatGPT’s inconsistent moral advice influences users’ judgment. Scientific Reports 13, 1 (2023), 4569

    2023

  41. [49]

    Gert-Jan Lelieveld, Eric Van Dijk, Ilja Van Beest, and Gerben A Van Kleef. 2013. Does communicating disappointment in negotiations help or hurt? Solving an apparent inconsistency in the social-functional approach to emotions. Journal of personality and social psychology 105, 4...

    2013

  42. [50]

    Jennifer S Lerner, Ye Li, Piercarlo Valdesolo, and Karim S Kassam. 2015. Emotion and decision making. Annual review of psychology 66, 1 (2015), 799–823

    2015

  43. [51]

    Fannie Liu, Laura Dabbish, and Geoff Kaufman. 2017. Supporting social interactions with an expressive heart rate sharing application. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 3 (2017), 1–26

    2017

  44. [52]

    Zhe Liu, Chunyang Chen, Junjie Wang, Mengzhuo Chen, Boyu Wu, Xing Che, Dandan Wang, and Qing Wang. 2024. Make llm a testing expert: Bringing human-like interaction to mobile gui testing via functionality-aware decisions. InProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Confere...

    2024

  45. [53]

    Dillon M Luke and Bertram Gawronski. 2022. Temporal stability of moral dilemma judgments: A longitudinal analysis using the CNI model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 48, 8 (2022), 1191–1203

    2022

  46. [54]

    Xingyang Lv, Yufan Yang, Dazhi Qin, Xingping Cao, and Hong Xu. 2022. Artificial intelligence service recovery: The role of empathic response in hospitality customers’ continuous usage intention. Computers in Human Behavior 126 (2022), 106993

    2022

  47. [55]

    Bertram F Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Thomas Arnold, John Voiklis, and Corey Cusimano. 2015. Sacrifice one for the good of many? People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot inter...

    2015

  48. [56]

    Ruth Barcan Marcus. 1980. Moral dilemmas and consistency. The Journal of Philosophy 77, 3 (1980), 121–136

    1980

  49. [57]

    Goreti Marreiros, Carlos Ramos, and José Neves. 2005. Emotion and Group Decision Making in Artificial Intelligence. Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision-Making in Humans and in AI 4 (2005), 41–46

    2005

  50. [58]

    Nyx L Ng, Dillon M Luke, and Bertram Gawronski. 2024. Thinking about reasons for one’s choices increases sensitivity to moral norms in moral-dilemma judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (2024), 01461672231180760

    2024

  51. [59]

    Yusuke Nishimura, Yutaka Nakamura, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2020. Human interaction behavior modeling using generative adversarial networks. Neural Networks 132 (2020), 521–531

    2020

  52. [60]

    Brett W Pelham and Jeff Orson Wachsmuth. 1995. The waxing and waning of the social self: Assimilation and contrast in social comparison.Journal of personality and social psychology 69, 5 (1995), 825

    1995

  53. [61]

    Rosalind W Picard. 2000. Affective computing. MIT press

    2000

  54. [62]

    E. A. Plante, J. S. Hyde, D. Keltner, and P. G. Devine. 2000. The gender stereotyping of emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly 24, 1 (2000), 81–92

    2000

  55. [63]

    thank you

    Bruce Rind and Prashant Bordia. 1995. Effect of server’s “thank you” and personalization on restaurant tipping 1.Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25, 9 (1995), 745–751

    1995

  56. [64]

    Stuart Russell. 2019. Human compatible: AI and the problem of control . Penguin Uk

    2019

  57. [65]

    Jana Schaich Borg, Catherine Hynes, John Van Horn, Scott Grafton, and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. 2006. Consequences, action, and intention as factors in moral judgments: An fMRI investigation. Journal of cognitive neuroscience 18, 5 (2006), 803–817

    2006

  58. [66]

    David M Schweiger, William R Sandberg, and James W Ragan. 1986. Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus. Academy of management Journal 29, 1 (1986), 51–71

    1986

  59. [67]

    Charles R Schwenk. 1990. Effects of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 47, 1 (1990), 161–176

    1990

  60. [68]

    Robin W Simon and Leda E Nath. 2004. Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? American journal of sociology 109, 5 (2004), 1137–1176

    2004

  61. [69]

    Michael Suguitan, Randy Gomez, and Guy Hoffman. 2020. MoveAE: modifying affective robot movements using classifying variational autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction . 481–489

    2020

  62. [70]

    June Price Tangney, Jeff Stuewig, and Debra J Mashek. 2007. Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58, 1 (2007), 345–372

    2007

  63. [71]

    Amir Taubenfeld, Yaniv Dover, Roi Reichart, and Ariel Goldstein. 2024. Systematic biases in LLM simulations of debates. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04049 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Judith Jarvis Thomson. 1984. The trolley problem. Yale LJ 94 (1984), 1395

    1984

  65. [73]

    Claudia Townsend and Sanjay Sood. 2012. Self-affirmation through the choice of highly aesthetic products. Journal of Consumer Research 39, 2 (2012), 415–428

    2012

  66. [74]

    Nguyen Tan Viet Tuyen, Armagan Elibol, and Nak Young Chong. 2020. Learning bodily expression of emotion for social robots through human interaction. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems 13, 1 (2020), 16–30

    2020

  67. [75]

    Gerben A Van Kleef, Carsten KW De Dreu, and Antony SR Manstead. 2004. The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of personality and social psychology 86, 1 (2004), 57

    2004

  68. [76]

    Alessandro Vinciarelli, Maja Pantic, and Hervé Bourlard. 2009. Social signal processing: Survey of an emerging domain. Image and vision computing 27, 12 (2009), 1743–1759

    2009

  69. [77]

    Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen. 2008. Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong . Oxford University Press. 16 Chenyi Zhang et al

    2008

  70. [78]

    Hua Wang, Helmut Prendinger, and Takeo Igarashi. 2004. Communicating emotions in online chat using physiological sensors and animated text. In CHI’04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems . 1171–1174

    2004

  71. [79]

    Gifford Weary and Jill A Jacobson. 1997. Causal uncertainty beliefs and diagnostic information seeking. Journal of personality and social psychology 73, 4 (1997), 839

    1997

  72. [80]

    Maarten JJ Wubben, David De Cremer, and Eric Van Dijk. 2009. How emotion communication guides reciprocity: Establishing cooperation through disappointment and anger. Journal of experimental social psychology 45, 4 (2009), 987–990

    2009

  73. [81]

    Joshua C Yang, Marcin Korecki, Damian Dailisan, Carina I Hausladen, and Dirk Helbing. 2024. Llm voting: Human choices and ai collective decision making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01766 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Yunfeng Zhang, Q Vera Liao, and Rachel KE Bellamy. 2020. Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 295–305

    2020

  75. [83]

    Yuyan Zhang, Jiahua Wu, Feng Yu, and Liying Xu. 2023. Moral judgments of human vs. AI agents in moral dilemmas. Behavioral Sciences 13, 2 (2023), 181

    2023

  76. [84]

    Xiqian Zheng, Masahiro Shiomi, Takashi Minato, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2019. What kinds of robot’s touch will match expressed emotions? IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5, 1 (2019), 127–134. Anger Speaks Louder? Exploring the Effects of AI Nonverbal Emotional Cues on Human D...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.