Sense of agency and responsibility: integrating legal and neurocognitive accounts
Lead Research Organisation:
University College London
Department Name: Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience
Abstract
This interdisciplinary project compares the concepts of responsibility for action in criminal law, and in psychology/neuroscience. All known human societies have some concept of individual responsibility for action. Legal systems generally view individuals as responsible because they have control over their actions: they are conscious, rational agents who 'could have done otherwise'. Rapidly-expanding scientific knowledge suggests a different view, in which an individual's actions are the result of neurobiological brain processes that are mechanistic, and largely independent of conscious experience. Recent expert consensus identified the tension between legal and neuroscientific views of responsibility as an important current debate between scientific knowledge and wider human culture. Interdisciplinary research, including new data, is required to identify the similarities and differences between legal and scientific views of responsibility. The present project acts as a research beacon, bridging this interdisciplinary gap. It does so by legal research that highlights the importance of psychology, and by experimental psychology research that addresses the possible mechanistic neurobiological bases of specific aspects of legal responsibility.
First, the project begins by identifying the ways in which English criminal law makes reference to subjective experience and other psychological concepts in its doctrine of responsibility. We will review key cases in which an agent's intention is relevant to responsibility, because of oblique intention, automatism/insanity, or loss of control. For each case, we will write parallel legal analyses, and psychological/neuroscientific commentary, highlighting how recent scientific knowledge might inform the legal discussion. The resulting publication(s) will present the points of similarity and tension between legal and scientific ways of viewing human action. It will also suggest fruitful areas for further research in both law and neuroscience.
Second, the project will include a series of 5 behavioural experiments. The experiments aim at quantifying the human sense of agency, using an established implicit measure based on human time perception: stronger agency and sense of responsibility leads to a shorter perceived interval between an action and its outcome. Using this measure, we will perform 3 simple experiments to investigate how agents' understanding of the value of an action outcome changes the experience of acting. Put simply, how does the sense of agency over good outcomes differ from that over bad outcomes? Developing experimental paradigms to study this would clarify the legal assumption that the intention to act is based on knowing the "nature and quality of the act". The results of these experiments will be relevant to automatism, insanity and oblique intention. A further two studies will investigate how extreme negative circumstances affect the sense of responsibility, aiming to provide an experimental comparison to legal "loss of control" defences. We will assess how our experimental measures of sense of agency are altered when the agent's action serves to terminate a persistent and painful sensation, produced by a controlled heat-pain stimulator. Taken together, the experiments aim to provide systematic and pertinent data to inform future research and discussion of the important links between neuroscience/psychology and law.
Finally, at the end of the project we will organise an expert workshop bringing together international experts in the law/neuroscience field. This serves as a focus to present our results, to exchange interdisciplinary perspectives, and to consider future research agendas for this fundamental topic in science and culture.
First, the project begins by identifying the ways in which English criminal law makes reference to subjective experience and other psychological concepts in its doctrine of responsibility. We will review key cases in which an agent's intention is relevant to responsibility, because of oblique intention, automatism/insanity, or loss of control. For each case, we will write parallel legal analyses, and psychological/neuroscientific commentary, highlighting how recent scientific knowledge might inform the legal discussion. The resulting publication(s) will present the points of similarity and tension between legal and scientific ways of viewing human action. It will also suggest fruitful areas for further research in both law and neuroscience.
Second, the project will include a series of 5 behavioural experiments. The experiments aim at quantifying the human sense of agency, using an established implicit measure based on human time perception: stronger agency and sense of responsibility leads to a shorter perceived interval between an action and its outcome. Using this measure, we will perform 3 simple experiments to investigate how agents' understanding of the value of an action outcome changes the experience of acting. Put simply, how does the sense of agency over good outcomes differ from that over bad outcomes? Developing experimental paradigms to study this would clarify the legal assumption that the intention to act is based on knowing the "nature and quality of the act". The results of these experiments will be relevant to automatism, insanity and oblique intention. A further two studies will investigate how extreme negative circumstances affect the sense of responsibility, aiming to provide an experimental comparison to legal "loss of control" defences. We will assess how our experimental measures of sense of agency are altered when the agent's action serves to terminate a persistent and painful sensation, produced by a controlled heat-pain stimulator. Taken together, the experiments aim to provide systematic and pertinent data to inform future research and discussion of the important links between neuroscience/psychology and law.
Finally, at the end of the project we will organise an expert workshop bringing together international experts in the law/neuroscience field. This serves as a focus to present our results, to exchange interdisciplinary perspectives, and to consider future research agendas for this fundamental topic in science and culture.
Planned Impact
Although this proposal represents basic academic research, it will have wider impact. Multiple indicators show a growing and widespread interest in reconciling two views of human nature and of society that appear increasingly divergent: the view of a society of rational, responsible agents that underlies the law, and the view of the individual as a biological machine, whose actions are orchestrated by a complex but ultimately deterministic brain. The impact and importance of this tension cannot be underestimated: it has been highlighted by the Royal Society "Brainwaves" report, to which Co-Investigator Claydon contributed, and it forms the focus of large-scale research actions such as the MacArthur project in the United States. These initiatives all identify lack of research on the interface between law and psychology/neuroscience as a major knowledge gap, and an important societal need. Therefore, we anticipate that the present work will impact these projects and discussions in the first instance, and through them the wider social debate on the neurobiological bases of individual intentionality and agency.
The research will aimpact three specific stakeholder, user and professional groups: lawyers, technologists, and psychiatrists:
1. The work will have immediate impact through the investigators' dissemination activities within non-academic stakeholder groups. For example, both Haggard and Claydon participate in the European Association for Neuroscience and Law (EANL). Haggard will give a keynote address on 'Agency and Responsibility' at the EANL Winter School in January 2014. EANL brings together practicing lawyers, law-makers, and academic experts in both law and neuroscience. It has an important training brief. EANL's international perspective is highly valuable, because the universal concept of responsibility is expressed with surprising variations across different national jurisdictions.
2. Haggard is actively involved in debates on neuroethical issues associated with technological enhancement of human agency (e.g., organisation of an expert international symposium on "Neuroethics of human experience" at Fondation Brocher, Geneva in 2014; participation in EU FP7 projects BEAMING and VERE with industrial partners from the virtual reality sector). He is an ethical consultant on an ERC virtual reality grant (TRAVERSE). He will ensure the project's impact by transferring knowledge about responsibility and agency to engineers making artificial and augmented agencies for new human-interaction technologies.
3. Forensic psychiatry is another important impact area for this research. Forensic psychiatrists are often asked by courts whether an individual has a sufficient sense of responsibility, and/or sufficient intentional control of action. One impact of the research is to provide empirical scientific research data to refine the legal questions which would be most appropriately asked of those giving scientific evidence. This could be in relation to the threshold conditions of liability or in relation to mental conditions which arguably prevent the formation of the mens rea required for the criminal act. This would have the great advantage of making the provision of forensic evidence in court less complicated for forensic scientists. In particular, criteria and diagnostic tests for the sense of responsibility are controversial, or non-existent. Nevertheless, there is considerable agreement on the need for more extensive data, and a more evidence-based approach to clinical judgement, in this area. Haggard has already collaborated with practicing psychiatrists on evidence-based projects (e.g., 3 publications on sense of agency in schizophrenia published in international journals in the last decade). However, this impact needs to be extended to the practitioner base. To this end, we plan to propose a Commentary piece in an appropriate journal.
The research will aimpact three specific stakeholder, user and professional groups: lawyers, technologists, and psychiatrists:
1. The work will have immediate impact through the investigators' dissemination activities within non-academic stakeholder groups. For example, both Haggard and Claydon participate in the European Association for Neuroscience and Law (EANL). Haggard will give a keynote address on 'Agency and Responsibility' at the EANL Winter School in January 2014. EANL brings together practicing lawyers, law-makers, and academic experts in both law and neuroscience. It has an important training brief. EANL's international perspective is highly valuable, because the universal concept of responsibility is expressed with surprising variations across different national jurisdictions.
2. Haggard is actively involved in debates on neuroethical issues associated with technological enhancement of human agency (e.g., organisation of an expert international symposium on "Neuroethics of human experience" at Fondation Brocher, Geneva in 2014; participation in EU FP7 projects BEAMING and VERE with industrial partners from the virtual reality sector). He is an ethical consultant on an ERC virtual reality grant (TRAVERSE). He will ensure the project's impact by transferring knowledge about responsibility and agency to engineers making artificial and augmented agencies for new human-interaction technologies.
3. Forensic psychiatry is another important impact area for this research. Forensic psychiatrists are often asked by courts whether an individual has a sufficient sense of responsibility, and/or sufficient intentional control of action. One impact of the research is to provide empirical scientific research data to refine the legal questions which would be most appropriately asked of those giving scientific evidence. This could be in relation to the threshold conditions of liability or in relation to mental conditions which arguably prevent the formation of the mens rea required for the criminal act. This would have the great advantage of making the provision of forensic evidence in court less complicated for forensic scientists. In particular, criteria and diagnostic tests for the sense of responsibility are controversial, or non-existent. Nevertheless, there is considerable agreement on the need for more extensive data, and a more evidence-based approach to clinical judgement, in this area. Haggard has already collaborated with practicing psychiatrists on evidence-based projects (e.g., 3 publications on sense of agency in schizophrenia published in international journals in the last decade). However, this impact needs to be extended to the practitioner base. To this end, we plan to propose a Commentary piece in an appropriate journal.
Publications
Beyer F
(2017)
Beyond self-serving bias: diffusion of responsibility reduces sense of agency and outcome monitoring.
in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience
Borhani K
(2017)
Choosing, Doing, and Controlling: Implicit Sense of Agency Over Somatosensory Events.
in Psychological science
Caspar EA
(2016)
Coercion Changes the Sense of Agency in the Human Brain.
in Current biology : CB
Caspar EA
(2015)
The relationship between human agency and embodiment.
in Consciousness and cognition
Chambon V
(2015)
TMS stimulation over the inferior parietal cortex disrupts prospective sense of agency.
in Brain structure & function
Christensen JF
(2016)
Emotional valence, sense of agency and responsibility: A study using intentional binding.
in Consciousness and cognition
De Havas J
(2015)
Sensorimotor organization of a sustained involuntary movement.
in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience
Ganos C
(2015)
Volitional action as perceptual detection: predictors of conscious intention in adolescents with tic disorders.
in Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior
Haggard P
(2017)
Sense of agency in the human brain.
in Nature reviews. Neuroscience
Khalighinejad N
(2015)
Modulating human sense of agency with non-invasive brain stimulation.
in Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior
Description | We have developed experimental methods aimed at testing fundamental legal assumptions about responsibility, agency and voluntariness. We have found that core factors in legal responsibility, including strong emotion, and coercion by a third party, can strongly influence basic feelings of responsibility. We designed experimental studies to investigate whether key components of legal notions of responsibility correspond to a genuine neurocognitive evidence base. We have identified some of the brain mechanisms involved in these modulations. We have linked the arguments used in legal defences to specific neurophysiological and brain processes. We reviewed legal case literature on insanity defences in the light of modern neuroscientific views on the neural basis of agency and volition. We are publishing a review paper investigating whether there is a neurobiological basis for the "Loss of Control" defence for murder in English Law. |
Exploitation Route | The findings could contribute to improved use of neuroscientific evidence in the law, and to a more evidence-based approach to legal concepts of responsibility. The growing penetration of all sectors of society by AI and digital technologies have highlighted the need for a concept of responsibility appropriate for the age of intelligent machines. The project found an unexpected impact and relevance to this new and pressing question. Our research provides important constraint and guidelines on the conditions of responsibility in AI, as shown by recent submissions to public debates and consultations on topics such as robot ethics. In this connection, the PI of the grant (PH) has (a) been invited to join the scientific advisory board of a new AI institute at University of Paris-Saclay (b) has given an invited lecture on responsibility at Humboldt University Berlin. |
Sectors | Digital/Communication/Information Technologies (including Software) Healthcare Government Democracy and Justice Culture Heritage Museums and Collections |
URL | http://www.nature.com/news/modern-milgram-experiment-sheds-light-on-power-of-authority-1.19408 |
Description | A major public engagement impact came from the media coverage of our paper "Coercion changes the sense of agency in the human brain", by BBC, New Scientist, and Nature, among others. A potential policy impact comes from a meeting between neuroscientists and lawyers, scheduled for March 2016 at British Academy. The findings have been used in recent discussions of responsibility in AI. First, the project findings were highlighted in a British Academy Debate on "robots and responsibility" in January 2017. Second, the project findings were used in a submission to an EU consultation on Robot Ethics (January 2019). The findings have lead to a project at Paris-Saclay on "Agency and responsibility in the age of intelligent machines" (see 'further funding'). A keynote address on the topic of Autonomy for individuals, machines and societies will be given at at invited meeting in Paris-Saclay on 31/5/22. |
First Year Of Impact | 2016 |
Sector | Digital/Communication/Information Technologies (including Software),Environment,Government, Democracy and Justice,Security and Diplomacy |
Impact Types | Cultural Societal Policy & public services |
Description | Chaire Jean D'Alembert |
Amount | € 45,000 (EUR) |
Organisation | University of Paris-Saclay |
Sector | Academic/University |
Country | France |
Start | 01/2020 |
End | 12/2020 |
Description | SSNAP |
Amount | $25,000 (USD) |
Organisation | The John Templeton Foundation |
Sector | Academic/University |
Country | United States |
Start | 07/2016 |
End | 12/2017 |
Description | Paris-Saclay AI institute |
Organisation | University of Paris-Saclay |
Country | France |
Sector | Academic/University |
PI Contribution | Membership of advisory boards |
Collaborator Contribution | Membership of advisory boards |
Impact | None yet. |
Start Year | 2021 |
Description | Autonomy and responsibility conference |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | An interdisciplinary conference on the meaning of individual autonomy in moral and cognitive sciences, held at British Academy and funded by Evens Foundation |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
Description | Neuroscience and Law workshop |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | An interdisciplinary workshop on the contrasting perspectives of neuroscience and law on the concept of responsibility for action, held at University of London |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |