Blame It on the Self-Driving Car: How Autonomous Vehicles Can Alter Consumer Morality

Tripat Gill
{"title":"Blame It on the Self-Driving Car: How Autonomous Vehicles Can Alter Consumer Morality","authors":"Tripat Gill","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3679543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are expected to soon replace human drivers and promise substantial benefits to society. Yet, consumers remain skeptical about handing over control to an AV. Partly because there is uncertainty about the appropriate moral norms for such vehicles (e.g., should AVs protect the passenger or the pedestrian if harm is unavoidable?). Building on recent work on AV morality, the current research examined how people resolve the dilemma between protecting self versus a pedestrian, and what they expect an AV to do in a similar situation. Five studies revealed that participants considered harm to a pedestrian more permissible with an AV as compared to self as the decision agent in a regular car. This shift in moral judgments was driven by the attribution of responsibility to the AV and was observed for both severe and moderate harm, and when harm was real or imagined. However, the effect was attenuated when five pedestrians or a child could be harmed. These findings suggest that AVs can change prevailing moral norms and promote an increased self-interest among consumers. This has relevance for the design and policy issues related to AVs. It also highlights the moral implications of autonomous agents replacing human decision-makers.","PeriodicalId":14586,"journal":{"name":"IO: Productivity","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IO: Productivity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3679543","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are expected to soon replace human drivers and promise substantial benefits to society. Yet, consumers remain skeptical about handing over control to an AV. Partly because there is uncertainty about the appropriate moral norms for such vehicles (e.g., should AVs protect the passenger or the pedestrian if harm is unavoidable?). Building on recent work on AV morality, the current research examined how people resolve the dilemma between protecting self versus a pedestrian, and what they expect an AV to do in a similar situation. Five studies revealed that participants considered harm to a pedestrian more permissible with an AV as compared to self as the decision agent in a regular car. This shift in moral judgments was driven by the attribution of responsibility to the AV and was observed for both severe and moderate harm, and when harm was real or imagined. However, the effect was attenuated when five pedestrians or a child could be harmed. These findings suggest that AVs can change prevailing moral norms and promote an increased self-interest among consumers. This has relevance for the design and policy issues related to AVs. It also highlights the moral implications of autonomous agents replacing human decision-makers.
归咎于自动驾驶汽车:自动驾驶汽车如何改变消费者道德
自动驾驶汽车(AVs)有望很快取代人类驾驶员,并为社会带来巨大利益。然而,消费者仍然对将控制权交给自动驾驶汽车持怀疑态度。部分原因是此类车辆的适当道德规范存在不确定性(例如,如果伤害不可避免,自动驾驶汽车是否应该保护乘客或行人?)基于最近对自动驾驶汽车道德的研究,目前的研究调查了人们如何解决保护自己与行人之间的困境,以及他们在类似情况下期望自动驾驶汽车做什么。五项研究表明,与自己作为普通汽车的决策主体相比,参与者认为自动驾驶汽车对行人的伤害是可以接受的。这种道德判断的转变是由AV的责任所驱动的,并且在严重和中度伤害,以及真实或想象的伤害中都可以观察到。然而,当五个行人或一个孩子可能受到伤害时,效果就减弱了。这些发现表明,自动驾驶汽车可以改变普遍的道德规范,并促进消费者增加自身利益。这与自动驾驶汽车的设计和政策问题有关。它还强调了自主代理取代人类决策者的道德含义。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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