When AI Fails, Who Do We Blame? Attributing Responsibility in Human–AI Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While previous studies of trust in artificial intelligence have focused on perceived user trust, the paper examines how an external agent (e.g., an auditor) assigns responsibility, perceives trustworthiness, and explains the successes and failures of AI. In two experiments, participants (university students) reviewed scenarios about automation failures and assigned perceived responsibility, trustworthiness, and preferred explanation type. Participants’ cumulative responsibility ratings for three agents (operators, developers, and AI) exceeded 100%, implying that participants were not attributing trust in a wholly rational manner, and that trust in the AI might serve as a proxy for trust in the human software developer. Dissociation between responsibility and trustworthiness suggested that participants used different cues, with the kind of technology and perceived autonomy affecting judgments. Finally, we additionally found that the kind of explanation used to understand a situation differed based on whether the AI succeeded or failed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".