教育科学理论研究Theoretical research on educational science

青少年对人工智能在道德困境中决策的接受度
张义玲

广西师范大学教育学院心理学系雁山校区，广西桂林，541006；

摘要：本研究采用 2（决策主体：人工智能 vs 人类）×2（道德类型：功利主义 vs 义务论）的完全被试间实验设计，探讨不同决策主体与道德类型对高中生道德建议接受度的影响。结果显示，决策主体主效应显著，被试对人类决策的接受度显著高于人工智能决策；道德类型主效应不显著，功利主义与义务论建议在整体接受度上无差异。进一步分析表明，决策主体与道德类型存在显著交互作用：在功利主义情境下，被试对人类决策的接受度显著高于人工智能决策；在义务论情境下，该差异仍存在但较弱。研究揭示了青少年在不同道德框架下对人工智能决策接受度的差异化表现及其主体性偏好模式。

关键词：人工智能；接受度；功利主义；义务论

参考文献

[1] 杨雪, & 宋佳殷. (2025). 家庭教养方式、亲子关系与青少年社会心理发展. 人口学刊, 47(1), 78-93. http://doi.org/10.16405/j.cnki.1004-129X.2025.01.006

[2] Krettenauer, T. (2011). The dual aspects of moral identity: Moral motivation and moral cognition in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1619–1632.

[3] Zhang, Y., Wu, J., Yu, F., & Xu, L. (2023). Moral Judgments of Human vs. AI Agents in Moral Dilemmas. Behavioral Sciences, 13(2) http://doi.org/10.3390/bs13020181

[4] Noh, D. (2023). Misunderstanding Minds: People's Attributions of Intentionality to AI Systems. AI & Society, 38(3), 649–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01537-0

[5] Hertz, Nicholas, and Eva Wiese. “Good Advice Is beyond All Price, but What If It Comes from a Machine?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 31 Jan. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000205. Accessed 30 June 2019.

[6] Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., Arnold, T., Voiklis, J., & Cusimano, C. (2015). Sacrifice one for the good of many? People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 117–124.

[7] Hakimi, H., Joolaee, S., Ashghali Farahani, M. et al. Moral neutralization: Nurses’ evolution in unethical climate workplaces. BMC Med Ethics 21, 114 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00558-3