“Let the Driver off the Hook?” moral decisions of autonomous cars and their impact on consumer well-being

IF 6.3 1区 工程技术 Q1 ECONOMICS
Marc Kuhn, Vanessa Reit, Maximilian Schwing, Sarah Selinka
{"title":"“Let the Driver off the Hook?” moral decisions of autonomous cars and their impact on consumer well-being","authors":"Marc Kuhn,&nbsp;Vanessa Reit,&nbsp;Maximilian Schwing,&nbsp;Sarah Selinka","doi":"10.1016/j.tra.2024.104224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Equipped with sophisticated, AI-based driver assistance systems, passenger cars are becoming increasingly intelligent. It seems that in a matter of a few years, fully autonomous vehicles will operate without any driver intervention. In this context, researchers are addressing the question of how fully automated vehicles should make decisions in critical situations. Should they spare the driver, children jumping out into the road or elderly people standing on the sidewalk? Projects such as MIT’s Moral Machine are investigating the preferences of people from different nations and cultures for ethical decision algorithms. Evaluations of these automated decisions and how the may impact consumer perception and well-being are still scarce. In our experimental study, participants experienced a simulator-based driving situation in a fully autonomous car, after which they were confronted with alternative scenarios requiring automated action by the car in a critical situation. We measured the emotional status and well-being of our test-persons (N=33) in those critical situations using facial expression recognition (FER), electroencephalography (EEG), and standardized questions. The results show that there are detectable differences between the scenarios with respect to emotions as well as subjective well-being and behavioral intentions in the test group’s responses to the questionnaire. Regarding FER and EEG, no statistically significant differences could be shown due to the small subsample.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49421,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice","volume":"189 ","pages":"Article 104224"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856424002726","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Equipped with sophisticated, AI-based driver assistance systems, passenger cars are becoming increasingly intelligent. It seems that in a matter of a few years, fully autonomous vehicles will operate without any driver intervention. In this context, researchers are addressing the question of how fully automated vehicles should make decisions in critical situations. Should they spare the driver, children jumping out into the road or elderly people standing on the sidewalk? Projects such as MIT’s Moral Machine are investigating the preferences of people from different nations and cultures for ethical decision algorithms. Evaluations of these automated decisions and how the may impact consumer perception and well-being are still scarce. In our experimental study, participants experienced a simulator-based driving situation in a fully autonomous car, after which they were confronted with alternative scenarios requiring automated action by the car in a critical situation. We measured the emotional status and well-being of our test-persons (N=33) in those critical situations using facial expression recognition (FER), electroencephalography (EEG), and standardized questions. The results show that there are detectable differences between the scenarios with respect to emotions as well as subjective well-being and behavioral intentions in the test group’s responses to the questionnaire. Regarding FER and EEG, no statistically significant differences could be shown due to the small subsample.

"放任司机?"自动驾驶汽车的道德决策及其对消费者福祉的影响
乘用车配备了先进的人工智能驾驶辅助系统,变得越来越智能。似乎再过几年,全自动驾驶汽车将在没有任何驾驶员干预的情况下运行。在此背景下,研究人员正在研究全自动驾驶汽车在危急情况下应如何做出决策的问题。它们是否应该放过驾驶员、跳到马路上的儿童或站在人行道上的老人?麻省理工学院的 "道德机器"(Moral Machine)等项目正在调查来自不同国家和文化的人们对道德决策算法的偏好。对这些自动决策以及它们如何影响消费者的感知和福祉的评估仍然很少。在我们的实验研究中,参与者在一辆完全自动驾驶的汽车中体验了基于模拟器的驾驶情境,之后他们又面临了需要汽车在危急情况下自动采取行动的其他情景。我们使用面部表情识别(FER)、脑电图(EEG)和标准化问题测量了测试者(33 人)在这些危急情况下的情绪状态和幸福感。结果表明,在测试组对问卷的回答中,不同情景下的情绪、主观幸福感和行为意向都存在可察觉的差异。至于 FER 和 EEG,由于子样本较少,在统计上无法显示显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
7.80%
发文量
257
审稿时长
9.8 months
期刊介绍: Transportation Research: Part A contains papers of general interest in all passenger and freight transportation modes: policy analysis, formulation and evaluation; planning; interaction with the political, socioeconomic and physical environment; design, management and evaluation of transportation systems. Topics are approached from any discipline or perspective: economics, engineering, sociology, psychology, etc. Case studies, survey and expository papers are included, as are articles which contribute to unification of the field, or to an understanding of the comparative aspects of different systems. Papers which assess the scope for technological innovation within a social or political framework are also published. The journal is international, and places equal emphasis on the problems of industrialized and non-industrialized regions. Part A''s aims and scope are complementary to Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Part C: Emerging Technologies and Part D: Transport and Environment. Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. The complete set forms the most cohesive and comprehensive reference of current research in transportation science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信