The more they think, the less they want: studying people’s attitudes about autonomous vehicles could also contribute to shaping them

Hubert Etienne, Florian Cova
{"title":"The more they think, the less they want: studying people’s attitudes about autonomous vehicles could also contribute to shaping them","authors":"Hubert Etienne,&nbsp;Florian Cova","doi":"10.1007/s43681-023-00385-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the past years, many studies have surveyed people’s intuitions about moral dilemmas involving autonomous vehicles (AVs). One widespread rationale for this line of research has been that understanding people’s attitudes about such dilemmas might help increase the pace of the adoption of autonomous vehicles—a goal that certain researchers consider a pressing moral imperative. However, surveying people is not a neutral process that is independent of respondents’ opinions and responses: in fact, respondents’ opinions can be influenced merely by taking part in a survey. In this paper, we present the results of three studies that suggest that participating in such surveys impacts participants’ willingness to acquire AVs. In our studies, we find that reflecting on AV dilemmas negatively impacted participants' willingness. Based on these results, we argue that prompting the general population to focus on AV dilemmas might highlight aspects of AVs that discourage their adoption. This results in a tension between the main rationale for empirical research on AV dilemmas and the impact of this research on the public at large.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 1","pages":"633 - 640"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-023-00385-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the past years, many studies have surveyed people’s intuitions about moral dilemmas involving autonomous vehicles (AVs). One widespread rationale for this line of research has been that understanding people’s attitudes about such dilemmas might help increase the pace of the adoption of autonomous vehicles—a goal that certain researchers consider a pressing moral imperative. However, surveying people is not a neutral process that is independent of respondents’ opinions and responses: in fact, respondents’ opinions can be influenced merely by taking part in a survey. In this paper, we present the results of three studies that suggest that participating in such surveys impacts participants’ willingness to acquire AVs. In our studies, we find that reflecting on AV dilemmas negatively impacted participants' willingness. Based on these results, we argue that prompting the general population to focus on AV dilemmas might highlight aspects of AVs that discourage their adoption. This results in a tension between the main rationale for empirical research on AV dilemmas and the impact of this research on the public at large.

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
想得越多,要得越少:研究人们对自动驾驶汽车的态度也有助于塑造自动驾驶汽车
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring the mutations of society in the era of generative AI The need for an empirical research program regarding human–AI relational norms AI to renew public employment services? Explanation and trust of domain experts Waging warfare against states: the deployment of artificial intelligence in cyber espionage Technology, liberty, and guardrails
×
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