Algorithmic Aversion? Experimental Evidence on the Elasticity of Public Attitudes to “Killer Robots”

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Security Studies Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1080/09636412.2023.2250259
Ondřej Rosendorf, Michal Smetana, Marek Vranka
{"title":"Algorithmic Aversion? Experimental Evidence on the Elasticity of Public Attitudes to “Killer Robots”","authors":"Ondřej Rosendorf, Michal Smetana, Marek Vranka","doi":"10.1080/09636412.2023.2250259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Lethal autonomous weapon systems present a prominent yet controversial military innovation. While previous studies have indicated that the deployment of “killer robots” would face considerable public opposition, our understanding of the elasticity of these attitudes, contingent on different factors, remains limited. In this article, we aim to explore the sensitivity of public attitudes to three specific factors: concerns about the accident-prone nature of the technology, concerns about responsibility attribution for adverse outcomes, and concerns about the inherently undignified nature of automated killing. Our survey experiment with a large sample of Americans reveals that public attitudes toward autonomous weapons are significantly contingent on beliefs about their error-proneness relative to human-operated systems. Additionally, we find limited evidence that individuals concerned about human dignity violations are more likely to oppose “killer robots.” These findings hold significance for current policy debates about the international regulation of autonomous weapons.","PeriodicalId":47478,"journal":{"name":"Security Studies","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2023.2250259","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lethal autonomous weapon systems present a prominent yet controversial military innovation. While previous studies have indicated that the deployment of “killer robots” would face considerable public opposition, our understanding of the elasticity of these attitudes, contingent on different factors, remains limited. In this article, we aim to explore the sensitivity of public attitudes to three specific factors: concerns about the accident-prone nature of the technology, concerns about responsibility attribution for adverse outcomes, and concerns about the inherently undignified nature of automated killing. Our survey experiment with a large sample of Americans reveals that public attitudes toward autonomous weapons are significantly contingent on beliefs about their error-proneness relative to human-operated systems. Additionally, we find limited evidence that individuals concerned about human dignity violations are more likely to oppose “killer robots.” These findings hold significance for current policy debates about the international regulation of autonomous weapons.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
算法的厌恶吗?公众对“杀手机器人”态度弹性的实验证据
致命自主武器系统是一项突出而又有争议的军事创新。虽然之前的研究表明,部署“杀手机器人”将面临相当大的公众反对,但我们对这些态度的弹性(取决于不同因素)的理解仍然有限。在本文中,我们旨在探讨公众对三个具体因素的敏感性态度:对技术易发生事故性质的担忧,对不良后果的责任归属的担忧,以及对自动杀人固有的不尊严性质的担忧。我们对大量美国人进行的调查实验显示,公众对自主武器的态度在很大程度上取决于他们对自主武器相对于人类操作系统容易出错的看法。此外,我们发现有限的证据表明,担心人类尊严受到侵犯的个人更有可能反对“杀手机器人”。这些发现对当前有关自主武器国际监管的政策辩论具有重要意义。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Security Studies
Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Security Studies publishes innovative scholarly manuscripts that make a significant contribution – whether theoretical, empirical, or both – to our understanding of international security. Studies that do not emphasize the causes and consequences of war or the sources and conditions of peace fall outside the journal’s domain. Security Studies features articles that develop, test, and debate theories of international security – that is, articles that address an important research question, display innovation in research, contribute in a novel way to a body of knowledge, and (as appropriate) demonstrate theoretical development with state-of-the art use of appropriate methodological tools. While we encourage authors to discuss the policy implications of their work, articles that are primarily policy-oriented do not fit the journal’s mission. The journal publishes articles that challenge the conventional wisdom in the area of international security studies. Security Studies includes a wide range of topics ranging from nuclear proliferation and deterrence, civil-military relations, strategic culture, ethnic conflicts and their resolution, epidemics and national security, democracy and foreign-policy decision making, developments in qualitative and multi-method research, and the future of security studies.
期刊最新文献
Buying Survival: Why Do Leaders Hire Mercenaries? The Market for Foreign Bases Is multi-method research more convincing than single-method research? An analysis of International Relations journal articles, 1980–2018 International Security and Black Politics: A Biographical Note Toward an Institutional Critique How Central is Race to International Relations?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1