Human Psychology and Robot Evidence in the Courtroom, Alternative Dispute Resolution, and Agency Proceedings

Authors

• Sara Sun Beale, Duke Law SchoolFollow
• Hayley Lawrence, Duke Law SchoolFollow

Document Type

Chapter of Book

Publication Date

2024

Keywords

autonomous vehicles, anthropomorphism, alternative dispute resolution, jury, robot design, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

Abstract

In human–robot interactions in legal proceedings, human responses to robot-generated evidence will present unique challenges to the accuracy of litigation as well as ancillary goals such as fairness and transparency, though it may also enhance accuracy in other respects. The most important feature of human–robot interactions is the human tendency to anthropomorphize robots, which can generate misleading impressions and be manipulated by designing robots to make them appear more trustworthy and believable. Although robot-generated evidence may also offer unique advantages, there are concerns about the degree to which the traditional methods of testing the accuracy of evidence, particularly cross-examination, will be effective. We explore these phenomena in the autonomous vehicles context, comparing the forums of litigation, alternative dispute resolution, and the National Transportation Safety Board. We suggest that the presence of expert decision-makers might help mitigate some of the problems with human–robot interactions, though other aspects of the procedures in each of the forums still raise concerns.

Citation

Sara Sun Beale & Hayley Lawrence, Human Psychology and Robot Evidence in the Courtroom, Alternative Dispute Resolution, and Agency Proceedings, in Human–Robot Interaction in Law and Its Narratives 111-140 (Sabine Gless & Helena Whalen-Bridge eds., 2024)

Creative Commons License

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