Risk of Injury in Moral Dilemmas With Autonomous Vehicles.
automated vehicles
ethics
moral dilemma
risk of injury
utilitarian choice
Journal
Frontiers in robotics and AI
ISSN: 2296-9144
Titre abrégé: Front Robot AI
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101749350
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
14
06
2020
accepted:
10
12
2020
entrez:
2
7
2021
pubmed:
3
7
2021
medline:
3
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
As autonomous machines, such as automated vehicles (AVs) and robots, become pervasive in society, they will inevitably face moral dilemmas where they must make decisions that risk injuring humans. However, prior research has framed these dilemmas in starkly simple terms, i.e., framing decisions as life and death and neglecting the influence of risk of injury to the involved parties on the outcome. Here, we focus on this gap and present experimental work that systematically studies the effect of risk of injury on the decisions people make in these dilemmas. In four experiments, participants were asked to program their AVs to either save five pedestrians, which we refer to as the utilitarian choice, or save the driver, which we refer to as the nonutilitarian choice. The results indicate that most participants made the utilitarian choice but that this choice was moderated in important ways by perceived risk to the driver and risk to the pedestrians. As a second contribution, we demonstrate the value of formulating AV moral dilemmas in a game-theoretic framework that considers the possible influence of others' behavior. In the fourth experiment, we show that participants were more (less) likely to make the utilitarian choice, the more utilitarian (nonutilitarian) other drivers behaved; furthermore, unlike the game-theoretic prediction that decision-makers inevitably converge to nonutilitarianism, we found significant evidence of utilitarianism. We discuss theoretical implications for our understanding of human decision-making in moral dilemmas and practical guidelines for the design of autonomous machines that solve these dilemmas while, at the same time, being likely to be adopted in practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34212006
doi: 10.3389/frobt.2020.572529
pii: 572529
pmc: PMC8239464
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
572529Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 De Melo, Marsella and Gratch.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Science. 2001 Sep 14;293(5537):2105-8
pubmed: 11557895
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 11;12(1):e0170133
pubmed: 28076403
Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Apr;11(4):143-52
pubmed: 17329147
Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Jun;24(3):383-403; discussion 403-51
pubmed: 11682798
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jul;7(7):320-324
pubmed: 12860191
Nature. 2015 Jul 2;523(7558):24-6
pubmed: 26135432
Psychol Sci. 2018 Jul;29(7):1084-1093
pubmed: 29741993
Nature. 2015 Feb 5;518(7537):20-3
pubmed: 25652978
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010 Mar;5(2):187-202
pubmed: 26162125
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Apr;25(2):399-418
pubmed: 29357047
Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Jun;23(3):681-700
pubmed: 27417644
Nature. 2018 Nov;563(7729):59-64
pubmed: 30356211
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Feb 26;116(9):3482-3487
pubmed: 30808742
Br J Soc Psychol. 2003 Sep;42(Pt 3):319-35
pubmed: 14567840
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2014 May;106(5):713-27
pubmed: 24749820
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010 Mar;5(2):209-12
pubmed: 26162128
Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Aug;17(8):413-25
pubmed: 23856025
Science. 2016 Jun 24;352(6293):1573-6
pubmed: 27339987