Commanding or Being a Simple Intermediary: How Does It Affect Moral Behavior and Related Brain Mechanisms?

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Neuroscience
• Cognitive Science

Background:

• Hierarchical structures can diffuse responsibility, potentially disinhibiting antisocial actions.
• Understanding the impact of command roles on agency and empathy is crucial, especially with autonomous systems.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate how commanding or acting as an intermediary in a hierarchical chain affects sense of agency and empathy for pain.
• To explore the influence of commanding human versus robot agents on these psychological and neural measures.

Main Methods:

• Two studies were conducted: Study 1 utilized functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and Study 2 employed electroencephalography (EEG).
• A behavioral paradigm involved participants deciding whether to administer painful shocks for monetary reward, with varying roles (commander, intermediary, agent) and executing agents (human, robot).

Main Results:

• fMRI (Study 1) showed reduced activation in social cognition and empathy-related brain regions for commanders and intermediaries compared to direct agents.
• EEG (Study 2) revealed no difference in the sense of agency between commanders and intermediaries, regardless of the executing agent.
• A higher neural response (P3 event-related potential) was observed when a robot executed the action compared to a human, mediated by the insula and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).

Conclusions:

• Distributed responsibility in hierarchical chains diminishes empathy and potentially facilitates antisocial behavior.
• The sense of agency is not significantly altered by intermediary or command roles, but the neural processing of action execution differs between human and robot agents.
• Findings highlight the complex interplay between agency, empathy, and decision-making in hierarchical and technologically mediated contexts.