The Influence of Advisor Agent Type and Decision Maker Agent Type on Blame Attribution toward Decision-makers in Undergraduate Students

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Aug 20, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.64731/jla.v26i2.293053
Keywords:
artificial intelligence mind perception blame attribution

Main Article Content

Bunyaphon Makontawat
Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, Thailand
Boonticha Piandee
Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, Thailand
Proundrawe Thongkam
Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, Thailand
Pp Suwannasing
Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, Thailand
Trawin Chaleeraktrakoon
Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, Thailand

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is playing an increasingly larger role in society, from aspects of everyday life to more significant ones such as those in the medical sphere. When AI-related systemic errors occur in advice or decision-making, blame can be ambiguous. Thus, this study investigates the influence of advisor and decision-maker agent types on attributing medical blame where decision-makers reject recommendations, leading to negative outcomes. The sample was obtained using convenience sampling. A total of 97 undergraduate students, enrolled in a psychology course at Thammasat University at the time, took part. Using a within-subjects design, participants read medical vignettes presented under nine experimental conditions featuring alternating advisor and decision-maker agent types. Participants were asked to evaluate degrees of blame attributed to the decision-maker in each scenario. The data were analyzed using a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA. Results indicated a main effect for advisor agent types (F (2,192) = 13.79, p < .001, 𝜂p2 = .126): decision-makers received the most blame for rejecting human, rather than human mind-like AI (p = 0.018) or generic AI (p < 0.001) advisors at a statistically significant level. Additionally, decision-makers received more blame for rejecting human mind-like AI advisors than for rejecting generic AI advisors at a marginally significant level. No main effect was found for decision-maker agent type. There was also no significant interaction between advisors and decision-maker agent types on blame attribution.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Makontawat, B., Piandee, B., Thongkam, P., Suwannasing, P., & Chaleeraktrakoon, T. (2026). The Influence of Advisor Agent Type and Decision Maker Agent Type on Blame Attribution toward Decision-makers in Undergraduate Students. Journal of Liberal Arts Thammasat University, 26(2), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.64731/jla.v26i2.293053
Issue
Vol. 26 No. 2 (2026): May - August 2026
Section
Research Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

āđ€āļ›āļīāļ”āļ•āļąāļ§ medical AI data platform āļŦāļ§āļąāļ‡āđƒāļŠāđ‰ AI āļŠāđˆāļ§āļĒāļ„āļąāļ”āļāļĢāļ­āļ‡-āļ§āļīāļ™āļīāļˆāļ‰āļąāļĒāđ‚āļĢāļ„. (21 āđ€āļĄāļĐāļēāļĒāļ™ 2568). āđ€āļ”āļĨāļīāļ™āļīāļ§āļŠāđŒ. https://www.dailynews.co.th/news/4629471/

āđ‚āļĢāļ‡āļžāļĒāļēāļšāļēāļĨāļšāļģāļĢāļļāļ‡āļĢāļēāļĐāļŽāļĢāđŒ. (23 āļžāļĪāļĻāļ āļēāļ„āļĄ 2565). Ai āđ€āļ—āļ„āđ‚āļ™āđ‚āļĨāļĒāļĩāļ›āļąāļāļāļēāļ›āļĢāļ°āļ”āļīāļĐāļāđŒāđƒāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļ™āļīāļˆāļ‰āļąāļĒāļ āļēāļ§āļ°āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļœāļīāļ”āļ›āļāļ•āļīāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ›āļ­āļ”āđāļĨāļ°āļĄāļ°āđ€āļĢāđ‡āļ‡āđ€āļ•āđ‰āļēāļ™āļĄ. https://www.bumrungrad.com/th/health-blog/may-2022/artificial-intelligence-cancer-diagnosis

āļŠāļģāļ™āļąāļāļ‡āļēāļ™āļšāļĢāļīāļŦāļēāļĢāđ€āļ—āļ„āđ‚āļ™āđ‚āļĨāļĒāļĩāļŠāļēāļĢāļŠāļ™āđ€āļ—āļĻāđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āļāļēāļĢāļĻāļķāļāļĐāļē. (25 āļāļĢāļāļŽāļēāļ„āļĄ 2567). āļ„āļ™āđ„āļ—āļĒ 73.84% āđƒāļŠāđ‰ AI āđƒāļ™āļŠāļĩāļ§āļīāļ•āļ›āļĢāļ°āļˆāļģāļ§āļąāļ™ āļĒāļīāđˆāļ‡āļĢāļēāļĒāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļŠāļđāļ‡ āļĒāļīāđˆāļ‡āđƒāļŠāđ‰ AI āđ€āļĒāļ­āļ°. https://www.uni.net.th/index.php/uncategorized/8012/

āļŠāļģāļ™āļąāļāļ‡āļēāļ™āļžāļąāļ’āļ™āļēāļ§āļīāļ—āļĒāļēāļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāđŒāđāļĨāļ°āđ€āļ—āļ„āđ‚āļ™āđ‚āļĨāļĒāļĩāđāļŦāđˆāļ‡āļŠāļēāļ•āļī. (1 āļāļąāļ™āļĒāļēāļĒāļ™ 2567). āļ›āļąāļāļāļēāļ›āļĢāļ°āļ”āļīāļĐāļāđŒ (AI) āļ„āļ·āļ­āļ­āļ°āđ„āļĢ. https://www.nstda.or.th/home/knowledge_post/āļ›āļąāļāļāļēāļ›āļĢāļ°āļ”āļīāļĐāļāđŒ-ai-āļ„āļ·āļ­āļ­āļ°āđ„āļĢ/

Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological bulletin, 126(4), 556-574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.556

Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569-579. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.4.569

Bigman, Y. E., & Gray, K. (2018). People are averse to machines making moral decisions. Cognition, 181, 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.003

Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14, 349-379. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MIND.0000035461.63578.9d

David, B. D., Resheff, Y. S., & Tron, T. (2021). Explainable AI and adoption of financial algorithmic advisors. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 390-400). https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462565

Frischknecht, R. (2021). A social cognition perspective on autonomous technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, Article 106815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106815

Furlough, C., Stokes, T., & Gillan, D. J. (2019). Attributing blame to robots: I. the influence of robot autonomy. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 63(4), 592-602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819880641

Gazit, L., Arazy, O., & Hertz, U. (2023). Choosing between human and algorithmic advisors: The role of responsibility sharing. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 1(2), Article 100009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100009

GÃģmez-SÃĄnchez, J., Gordo, C., Franklin, M., Fernandez-Basso, C., & Lagnado, D. (2023). Who is to blame? Responsibility attribution in AI systems vs human agents in the field of air crashes. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 256-264). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42935-4_21

Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619-619. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475

Hanson, A., Starr, N. D., Emnett, C., Wen, R., Malle, B. F., & Williams, T. (2024). The power of advice: Differential blame for human and robot advisors and deciders in a moral advising context. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 240-249). https://doi.org/10.1145/3610977.3634942

Joo, M. (2024). It’s the AI’s fault, not mine: Mind perception increases blame attribution to AI. PLOS ONE, 19(12), Article e0314559. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314559

Kaur, S., Singla, J., Nkenyereye, L., Jha, S., Prashar, D., Joshi, G. P., El-Sappagh, S., Islam, Md. S., & Islam, S. M. (2020). Medical diagnostic systems using artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms: principles and perspectives. IEEE Access, 8, 228049-228069. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3042273

Kempt, H., Heilinger, J. C., & Nagel, S. K. (2023). “I’m afraid I can’t let you do that, doctor”: Meaningful disagreements with AI in medical contexts. AI & Society, 38, 1407-1414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01418-x

Kim, T., & Hinds, P. (2006). Who should I blame? Effects of autonomy and transparency on attributions in human-robot interaction. In ROMAN 2006: The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 80-85). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314398

Kitchens, M. B., & Meier, B. P. (2025). The fearful mind of Artificial Intelligence: Fear and perceived existential threat of artificial intelligence as a function of its cognitive and emotional capabilities. The Journal of Social Psychology, 166(4), 423-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2025.2503006

KrÞgel, S., Ammeling, J., Aubreville, M., Fritz, A., Kießig, A., & Uhl, M. (2024). Perceived responsibility in AI-supported medicine. AI & SOCIETY, 40(3), 1485-1495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01972-6

Leichtmann, B., Hinterreiter, A., Humer, C., Ventura, A., Streit, M., & Mara, M. (2024). Moral reasoning in a digital age: Blaming artificial intelligence for incorrect high-risk decisions. Current Psychology, 43(41), 32412-32421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06658-2

Lima, G., Grgić-Hlača, N., & Cha, M. (2021). Human perceptions on moral responsibility of AI: A case study in AI-assisted bail decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-17). https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445260

Malle, B. F., Guglielmo, S., & Monroe, A. E. (2014). A theory of blame. Psychological Inquiry, 25(2), 147-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2014.877340

McMurtrie, B. L. (2023). Investigating the dimensions of mind perception. Journal of European Psychology Students, 14(1), 54-68. https://doi.org/10.59477/jeps.594

Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, 267, 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007

Schoenherr, J. R., & Thomson, R. (2024). When AI fails, who do we blame? Attributing responsibility in human–AI interactions. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 5(1), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2024.3370095

Shank, D. B., Graves, C., Gott, A., Gamez, P., & Rodriguez, S. (2019). Feeling our way to machine minds: People’s emotions when perceiving mind in artificial intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 256-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.001

Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5094-4

Stefanidis, K., Tsatsou, D., Konstantinidis, D., Gymnopoulos, L., Daras, P., Wilson-Barnes, S., Hart, K., Cornelissen, V., Decorte, E., Lalama, E., Pfeiffer, A., Hassapidou, M., Pagkalos, I., Argiriou, A., Rouskas, K., Hadjidimitriou, S., Charisis, V., Dias, S. B., Diniz, J. A., â€Ķ Dimitropoulos, K. (2022). Protein AI advisor: A knowledge-based recommendation framework using expert-validated meals for healthy diets. Nutrients, 14(20), Article 4435. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14204435

Stuart, M. T., & Kneer, M. (2021). Guilty artificial minds: Folk attributions of mens rea and culpability to artificially intelligent agents. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), Article 363. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479507

Tolmeijer, S., Christen, M., Kandul, S., Kneer, M., & Bernstein, A. (2022). Capable but amoral? Comparing AI and human expert collaboration in ethical decision making. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-17). https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517732

Verdicchio, M., & Perin, A. (2022). When doctors and AI interact: On human responsibility for artificial risks. Philosophy & Technology, 35(1), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00506-6

Wamsley, L. (2020, December 19). Stanford apologizes after vaccine allocation leaves out nearly all medical residents. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/12/18/948176807/stanford-apologizes-after-vaccine-allocation-leaves-out-nearly-all

Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006

Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005