Whether or not robots can feel is a question that, at least for now, might be better left to the philosophers. But what’s becoming increasingly clear, says Associate Professor Szu-chi Huang, is that robots do have the capacity to make us feel.

In this episode of If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society, Huang delves into the effect that robots can have not just on our emotions, but on our behavior.

Huang’s research shows that when people witness people helping others, they’re inspired to do the same. This is what she calls “pro-social” behavior. But she wondered: what happens when a robot is the one lending a helping hand? Are people inspired to by machines?

To find out, Huang designed a study where participants were shown various news reports about natural disasters and the measures being taken in response. In some stories, the “heroes” were human first responders; in others, they were robots.

“In both cases, we [explained] in detail what those heroes were doing,” says Huang. Whether dragging survivors out of ruins after an earthquake or disinfecting hospitals amidst a surging COVID-19 pandemic, “The actions are exactly the same, but the heroes are different.”

Following test subjects’ exposure to these stories, Huang measured their willingness to engage in pro-social behavior, like donating to support children in need. What she found was those who saw robot heroes were significantly less likely to donate than those who saw humans take the same actions. “The robot stories actually make people feel less inspired,” says Huang. “And that has important consequences. If using robots lowers our intention to help others, it could have a pretty big negative social impact.”

So what do we do as AI and robots play an increasing role in our lives? How do we embrace their benefits without downgrading our humanity and pro-sociability in the process? On this episode of If/Then, Huang explores how “humanizing” robots — highlighting their vulnerability, autonomy, and finitude — helps us connect with them and ourselves more deeply.

Takeaways

1. We are inspired to help people when we see others doing so. But what if it’s robots lending a helping hand? Are we still motivated to also help?
2. How we “humanize” robots — choosing features that highlight their vulnerability, autonomy, and finitude — could help us connect with them and ourselves more deeply.

More Resources:

• Robots or Humans for Disaster Response? Impact on Consumer Prosociality and Possible Explanations, Journal of Consumer Psychology
• Think Fast, Talk Smart: The Podcast: From Dreaming to Doing: How We Set and Achieve Goals

From Stanford GSB Insights:

• Why We See Rescue Robots as Helpers, Not Heroes
• Redefining Success: Adopt the Journey Mindset to Move Forward

If/Then is a podcast from Stanford Graduate School of Business that examines research findings that can help us navigate the complex issues we face in business, leadership, and society.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Digital currency — whether privately-developed or government-issued — seems like an inevitability to Stanford Graduate School of Business finance professor Darrell Duffie. “Virtually all countries are exploring a central bank digital currency for potential use,” he says.

An expert on banking, financial market infrastructure, and fintech payments, Duffie is interested in how central bank digital currencies (CBDC) could revolutionize economies around the world. The shift to a digital version of a fiat currency, still backed by a country’s central bank, could offer significant benefits compared to the current financial system. These include improved financial inclusion, lower cross-border payment costs, and more timely and secure transaction processing.

The key, Duffie says, is striking the right regulatory balance to foster innovation while mitigating risks. As this episode of If/Then explores, if the U.S. wants to future-proof banking, then a digital dollar could be a solution.

Key Takeaways:

• The benefits of central bank digital currencies: As digital versions of a country's fiat currency, backed by its central bank, CBDCs could provide advantages over the current financial system. These include improved financial inclusion, lower cross-border payment costs, and more timely and secure transaction processing.

• Challenges could be ahead: Duffie sees two major impediments — privacy concerns and the potential impact on the U.S. dollar's global dominance.

• The U.S. dollar's reserve currency status is secure for now: China's development of a "digital renminbi" raises questions about the dollar's dominance. Even so, Duffie believes the U.S. currency will maintain its position as the world's reserve currency for decades to come.

• Regulation will be crucial: Duffie says the U.S. lags behind other countries in establishing clear rules for cryptocurrencies and digital assets. Finding the right regulatory balance is critical if we’re going to foster innovation while mitigating risks.

More Resources:

Darrell Duffie, The Adams Distinguished Professor of Management and Professor of Finance.

Capitol Gains: GSB Professors Share Their Expertise in DC and Beyond

If/Then is a podcast from Stanford Graduate School of Business that examines research findings that can help us navigate the complex issues we face in business, leadership, and society.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A dollar is a dollar, right? While most conventional economic theories view money as an objective store of value, Mohammad Akbarpour says this misses a subtle but important fact: different people value money differently.

Many economists assume that the price someone is willing to pay for a good or service is equivalent to the utility they get from it. But Akbarpour, an associate professor of economics at Stanford Graduate School of Business, isn’t convinced. “Different people have different marginal value for money,” he says. “If someone is willing to pay $1,000 for a Taylor Swift concert, they do not necessarily get more value [than] someone willing to pay $500. If you're willing to pay more for something, that does not mean that the social welfare is maximized for giving the good to you. It could be that you're rich.”

As Akbarpour explores on this episode of If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society, money doesn’t have to be the sole decider of how scarce resources are allocated. By considering money’s subjectivity, we can design more equitable markets that maximize value and welfare for more people.

Key Takeaways:

• People value money differently: People have different subjective valuations of money based on their own circumstances and financial well-being. $100 means something much different to the CEO of a large, successful corporation than it does to a family on the brink of eviction.
• Market distortions can be warranted: For some goods and services, price controls or subsidies can be more efficient than a free market at allocating resources and benefiting those with less wealth.
• Real-world application: From ridesharing to concert tickets, Akbarpour shares how theoretical economics can be applied to address inequality and improve society.

More Resources:

Mohammad Akbarpour

Voices profile, Mohammad Akbarpour, "In some ways, all of academia hinges on this receptiveness to having your mind changed."

Akbarpour's research in Stanford GSB Insights:

• What If Markets Maximized Both Efficiency and Fairness?
• Rigged Auctions? Why Top Bidders Don’t Always Feel Like Winners
• A Beautiful Application: Using Economics to Make Kidney Exchanges More Efficient and Fair
• Is It Ever OK to Sell (or Buy) a Kidney?
• Are Influencers Overrated?

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.