Blame attribution and intentionality perception of human versus robot drivers: Implications for judgments about autonomous vehicles in moral dilemma contexts

Abstract

Existing research has examined people’s judgments concerning moral dilemmas involving non-human driving agents (i.e. an autonomous vehicle, abbr. AV). However, more evidence is needed to clarify the underlying cognitive mechanism accounting for the differential attribution of blame between non-human (e.g., robot) drivers and human drivers when facing a dilemma where obeying the traffic rule conflicts with humanitarian goals. Drawing on literature from moral psychology and human-robot interaction, we argued that the perception of mental state might account for this difference. In three studies, we investigated the mediating role of intentionality perceived in the drivers using a constructed scenario that mirrored real-life moral dilemmas. Studies 1 and 2 revealed that participants assigned greater blame and perceived higher levels of intentionality to human drivers than to robot drivers. Mediation analyses demonstrated that robot drivers received less of blame to the extent that they were perceived as less intentionally violating the traffic rule. In Study 3, we excluded a mitigating factor of blaming the robot, i.e. holding a third party (e.g., the manufacturers) accountable. We found that the mediation effect of perceived intentionality remained regardless. This research provides insights into the attribution of blame directed toward non-human drivers such as AVs and their assumed intentionality.

Keywords

• Blame judgment
• intentionality
• moral judgment
• autonomous vehicles
• moral dilemma
• traffic accident