38.7HCApr 10
AI-Induced Human Responsibility (AIHR) in AI-Human teamsGreg Nyilasy, Brock Bastian, Jennifer Overbeck et al.
As organizations increasingly deploy AI as a teammate rather than a standalone tool, morally consequential mistakes often arise from joint human-AI workflows in which causality is ambiguous. We ask how people allocate responsibility in these hybrid-agent settings. Across four experiments (N = 1,801) in an AI-assisted lending context (e.g., discriminatory rejection, irresponsible lending, and low-harm filing errors), participants consistently attributed more responsibility to the human decision maker when the human was paired with AI than when paired with another human (by an average of 10 points on a 0-100 scale across studies). This AI-Induced Human Responsibility (AIHR) effect held across high and low harm scenarios and persisted even where self-serving blame-shifting (when the human in question was the self) would be expected. Process evidence indicates that AIHR is explained by inferences of agent autonomy: AI is seen as a constrained implementer, which makes the human the default locus of discretionary responsibility. Alternative mechanisms (mind perception; self-threat) did not account for the effect. These findings extend research on algorithm aversion, hybrid AI-human organizational behavior and responsibility gaps in technology by showing that AI-human teaming can increase (rather than dilute) human responsibility, with implications for accountability design in AI-enabled organizations.
39.0HCMar 23
Do Consumers Accept AIs as Moral Compliance Agents?Greg Nyilasy, Abraham Ryan Ade Putra Hito, Jennifer Overbeck et al.
Consumers are generally resistant to Artificial Intelligence (AI) involvement in moral decision-making, perceiving moral agency as requiring uniquely human traits. This research investigates whether consumers might instead accept AIs in the role of moral compliance, where AI upholds pre-existing moral norms without exercising subjective discretion. Across five studies this research shows that consumers evaluate AI more positively than human agents in moral compliance roles. The findings reveal that this preference arises from inferences of AI's lack of ulterior motives, which are often attributed to human agents. While previous studies have focused on AI as a decision-maker, this work demonstrates the critical role of upholding pre-existing rules, a role in which AI is perceived to excel. These findings contribute to understanding consumer acceptance of moral AI and provide actionable insights for organizations seeking to leverage AI in ethical oversight. By positioning AI as a moral compliance agent, companies can address consumer skepticism, enhance trust, and improve perceptions of corporate ethicality.
82.4HCApr 14
Socially Fluent, Socially Awkward: Artificial Intelligence Relational Talk Backfires in Commercial InteractionsStephanie Kwari Dharmaputri, Anish Nagpal, Greg Nyilasy et al.
Advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies' social fluency are being integrated into commercial interactions. As tools such as OpenAI's assistant are integrated into platforms such as Shopify, Klarna, and Visa, understanding consumer responses to AI social features become essential. One such feature is relational talk, an informal and non-obligatory social communication embedded in transactional exchanges. Across four experiments, we find: 1) a negative main effect of AI relational talk on satisfaction, mediated by expectancy violation and perceived interaction awkwardness, and 2) goal-relevant relational talk to attenuate this effect. This paper extends the literature by challenging the assumption that increased social fluency will improve satisfaction, and highlights the complexity of integrating social features into AI systems. It also identifies awkwardness as a key emotional response and barrier to effective human-AI interaction, showing that even in the absence of real social repercussions, perceived awkwardness in AI-led commercial interactions can elicit negative responses.
17.6HCMar 11
Ghost Framing Theory: Exploring the role of generative AI in new venture rhetorical legitimationGreg Nyilasy
Responding to the surging but largely invisible use of generative AI in entrepreneurial framing, I advance Ghost Framing Theory (GFT) to explain how hybrid founder- and investor-genAI ensembles co-produce, contest, and recalibrate resonance in the rhetorical legitimation of new ventures. Building on scholarship in framing, micro-level legitimacy judgments, and sociomaterial affordances, I identify genAI rhetorical affordances (generativeness, extreme combinatorics, tone repertoire, velocity/energy and shared substratum) and theorize a recursive/iterative process model (ghost pitching, ghost screening, ghost relationship-building), configuring emergent resonance and legitimation. GFT builds new rhetorical framing theory for the age of genAI, connects research on human-AI collaboration with cultural entrepreneurship and extends affordance theory into multi-actor scenarios where affordance transitivity and visibility emerge as key considerations.
CYJul 6, 2025
AI-washing: The Asymmetric Effects of Its Two Types on Consumer Moral JudgmentsGreg Nyilasy, Harsha Gangadharbatla
As AI hype continues to grow, organizations face pressure to broadcast or downplay purported AI initiatives - even when contrary to truth. This paper introduces AI-washing as overstating (deceptive boasting) or understating (deceptive denial) a company's real AI usage. A 2x2 experiment (N = 401) examines how these false claims affect consumer attitudes and purchase intentions. Results reveal a pronounced asymmetry: deceptive denial evokes more negative moral judgments than honest negation, while deceptive boasting has no effects. We show that perceived betrayal mediates these outcomes. By clarifying how AI-washing erodes trust, the study highlights clear ethical implications for policymakers, marketers, and researchers striving for transparency.