Would you trust a machine to make life-or-death decisions about your health and safety? Machines today are capable of achieving much more than they could 30 years ago—and the same will be said for machines that exist 30 years from now. The rise of intelligence in machines has resulted in humans entrusting them with ever-increasing responsibility. With this has arisen the question of whether machines should be given equal responsibility to humans—or if humans will ever perceive machines as being accountable for such responsibility. For example, if an intelligent machine accidentally harms a person, should it be blamed for its mistake? Should it be trusted to continue interacting with humans? Furthermore, how does the assignment of moral blame and trustworthiness toward machines compare to such assignment to humans who harm others? I answer these questions by exploring differences in moral blame and trustworthiness attributed to human and machine agents who make harmful moral mistakes. Additionally, I examine whether the knowledge and type of reason, as well as apology, for the harmful incident affects perceptions of the parties involved. In order to fill the gaps in understanding between topics in moral psychology, cognitive psychology, and artificial intelligence, valuable information from each of these fields have been combined to guide the research study being presented herein.

Vigilance is the capacity for observers to maintain attention over extended periods of time, and has most often been operationalized as the ability to detect rare and critical signals (Davies & Parasuraman, 1982; Parasuraman, 1979; Warm, 1984). Humans, however, have natural physical and cognitive limitations that preclude successful long-term vigilance performance and consequently, without some means of assistance, failures in operator vigilance are likely to occur. Such a decline in monitoring performance over time has been a robust finding in vigilance experiments for decades and has been called the vigilance decrement function (Davies & Parasuraman, 1982; Mackworth, 1948). One of the most effective countermeasures employed to maintain effective performance has been cueing: providing the operator with a reliable prompt concerning signal onset probability. Most protocols have based such cues on task-related or environmental factors. The present dissertation examines the efficacy of cueing when nominally based on operator state (i.e., blood oxygenation of cortical tissue) in a novel vigilance task incorporating dynamic displays over three studies. Results pertaining to performance outcomes, physiological measures (cortical blood oxygenation and heart rate variability), and perceived workload and stress are interpreted via Signal Detection Theory and the Resource Theory of vigilance.

Gamification, or the application of game-like features in non-game contexts, has been growing in popularity over the last five years. Specifically, the successful gamification of applications (such as Waze, Foursquare, and Fitocracy) has begun a spike in gamification of more complex tasks, such as learning to use AutoCAD or Photoshop. However, much is unknown about the psychological mapping of gamification or how it translates to behavioral outcomes. This dissertation aims to compare three distinct styles of gamification (avatars, points and feedback, and leaderboards) onto the three basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). It will assess behavioral outcomes on a visual search task when gamification styles are used separately, compared against all three styles used in concert. The task chosen is a camouflage visual search task. This task was selected because it is both boring (as indicated by the Flow Short Scale) and difficult (as indicated by previous work). These features make it the ideal task to gamify. Results indicated that only in the full gamification condition was response time significantly faster than in the control condition, or no gamification. However, ANOVA evaluating differences in enjoyment, motivation, and stress indicated differences among the groups, suggesting that gamification may elicit psychological outcomes that may not necessarily manifest into behavioral outcomes. ANCOVA were used to evaluate group differences using relevant survey measures as covariates. These tests indicated differences among groups in all behavioral measures, though these differences were most pronounced in response time measures. Future directions involving gamification based on personality type, as well as suggestions on best practice for gamification in the future are discussed.

Vigilance, or sustained attention, is the capacity to attend to information for a prolonged period of time (Davies & Parasuraman, 1982; Jerison, 1970; Warm, 1977). Due to limitations of the human nervous system, as well as the environmental context, attention can begin to wane over time. This results in a phenomenon referred to as the vigilance decrement, or a decline in vigilance performance as a function of time. The vigilance decrement can manifest as poorer attention and is thusly associated with poor performance, which is defined behaviorally as more lapses in the detection of critical signals and an increase in response time to these signals during watch. Given this, the present dissertation seeks to systematically examine the impact of two types of motivation (i.e., achievement motivation, autonomous motivation) on vigilance performance across four experiments. The present experiments manipulate information processing type, source complexity, and motivational task demands. Three hundred and ninety-eight participants completed either a cognitive task or sensory task, which were psychophysically equated in previous studies (Szalma & Teo, 2012; Teo, Szalma, & Schmidt, 2011), with or without motivational instructions, and with either low, medium, or high source complexity. Performance measures, perceived stress and workload, and changes to state motivation and engagement at pre-task and post-task are interpreted across three theories of information processing: resource-depletion theory, mind-wandering theory, and mindlessness theory. The results of each of the four studies are discussed in terms of overall support for the resource-depletionist account. The limitations of the present set of experiments and the future directions for research on motivation and sustained attention are also discussed.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.