Performative Quantification: Design Choices Impact the Lessons of Empirical Surveys About the Ethics of Autonomous Vehicles

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Social Science Computer Review Pub Date : 2023-03-20 DOI:10.1177/08944393231164329
H. Etienne, Florian Cova
{"title":"Performative Quantification: Design Choices Impact the Lessons of Empirical Surveys About the Ethics of Autonomous Vehicles","authors":"H. Etienne, Florian Cova","doi":"10.1177/08944393231164329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, researchers have emphasized the relevance of data about commonsense moral judgments for ethical decision-making, notably in the context of debates about autonomous vehicles (AVs). As such, the results of empirical studies such as the Machine Moral Experiment have been influential in debates about the ethics of AVs and some researchers have even put forward methods to automatize ethical decision-making on the basis of such data. In this paper, we argue that data collection is not a neutral process, and the difference in study design can change participants’ answers and the ethical conclusions that can be drawn from them. After showing that participants’ individual answers are stable in the sense that providing them with a second occasion to reflect on their answers does not change them (Study 1), we show that different conclusions regarding participants’ moral preferences can be reached when participants are given a third option allowing AVs to behave randomly (Study 2), and that preference for this third option can be increased in the context of a collective discussion (Study 3). We conclude that design choices will influence the lessons that can be drawn from surveys about participants’ moral judgments about AVs and that these choices are not morally neutral.","PeriodicalId":49509,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Computer Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Computer Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231164329","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In recent years, researchers have emphasized the relevance of data about commonsense moral judgments for ethical decision-making, notably in the context of debates about autonomous vehicles (AVs). As such, the results of empirical studies such as the Machine Moral Experiment have been influential in debates about the ethics of AVs and some researchers have even put forward methods to automatize ethical decision-making on the basis of such data. In this paper, we argue that data collection is not a neutral process, and the difference in study design can change participants’ answers and the ethical conclusions that can be drawn from them. After showing that participants’ individual answers are stable in the sense that providing them with a second occasion to reflect on their answers does not change them (Study 1), we show that different conclusions regarding participants’ moral preferences can be reached when participants are given a third option allowing AVs to behave randomly (Study 2), and that preference for this third option can be increased in the context of a collective discussion (Study 3). We conclude that design choices will influence the lessons that can be drawn from surveys about participants’ moral judgments about AVs and that these choices are not morally neutral.
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
行为量化:设计选择对自动驾驶汽车伦理经验调查的影响
近年来,研究人员强调了常识性道德判断数据与伦理决策的相关性,特别是在关于自动驾驶汽车(AVs)的辩论中。因此,机器道德实验(Machine Moral Experiment)等实证研究的结果在关于自动驾驶汽车伦理的争论中产生了影响,一些研究人员甚至提出了基于这些数据的自动化伦理决策的方法。在本文中,我们认为数据收集不是一个中立的过程,研究设计的差异可以改变参与者的答案和从中得出的伦理结论。在证明了参与者的个人答案是稳定的,即给他们第二次机会反思他们的答案并不会改变他们(研究1)之后,我们表明,当参与者被给予第三种选择允许av随机行为时,可以得出关于参与者道德偏好的不同结论(研究2)。在集体讨论的背景下,可以增加对第三种选择的偏好(研究3)。我们的结论是,设计选择将影响可以从参与者对自动驾驶汽车的道德判断的调查中得出的教训,这些选择不是道德中立的。
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
Social Science Computer Review
Social Science Computer Review 社会科学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
4.90%
发文量
95
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Unique Scope Social Science Computer Review is an interdisciplinary journal covering social science instructional and research applications of computing, as well as societal impacts of informational technology. Topics included: artificial intelligence, business, computational social science theory, computer-assisted survey research, computer-based qualitative analysis, computer simulation, economic modeling, electronic modeling, electronic publishing, geographic information systems, instrumentation and research tools, public administration, social impacts of computing and telecommunications, software evaluation, world-wide web resources for social scientists. Interdisciplinary Nature Because the Uses and impacts of computing are interdisciplinary, so is Social Science Computer Review. The journal is of direct relevance to scholars and scientists in a wide variety of disciplines. In its pages you''ll find work in the following areas: sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, psychology, computer literacy, computer applications, and methodology.
期刊最新文献
The Moderating Role of Self-Esteem in the Relationship Between Social Media Use and Life Satisfaction Among Older Adults Feminist Identity and Online Activism in Four Countries From 2019 to 2023 Can AI Lie? Chabot Technologies, the Subject, and the Importance of Lying Improving the Quality of Individual-Level Web Tracking: Challenges of Existing Approaches and Introduction of a New Content and Long-Tail Sensitive Academic Solution Using Google Trends Data to Study High-Frequency Search Terms: Evidence for a Reliability-Frequency Continuum
×
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