Selfish or Utilitarian Automated Vehicles? Deontological Evaluation and Public Acceptance

Abstract

ABSTRACT This research involves a controversial topic in the public sphere: should automated vehicles (AVs) be programmed with selfish algorithms to protect their passengers at all costs or utilitarian algorithms to minimize social loss in crashes involving moral dilemmas? Among a growing number of studies on what AVs should do in sacrificial dilemmas from the perspective of laypeople, few have considered how laypeople respond to AVs programmed with these crash algorithms. Our survey collected participants’ deontological evaluation (i.e., evaluations of the moral righteousness of the decisions made by these AVs and of adopting these AVs), their perceived benefit and risk of these AVs, and their behavioral intention to use and willingness to pay (WTP) a premium for these AVs. The participants (N = 580) perceived greater benefits from selfish AVs and reported a greater intention to use and higher WTP a premium for selfish AVs than utilitarian AVs. Deontological evaluation and perceived risk were non-significantly different between these AVs. Overall, selfish AVs were more acceptable to our participants. Deontological evaluation, perceived benefit, and perceived risk were predictive of behavioral intention. Additionally, after controlling for them, vehicle type still exerted a direct influence on behavioral intention. Perceived benefit was the dominant predictor of WTP a premium. Remarkably, participants expressed an insufficient intention to adopt both AVs, probably indicating that in regards to AV deployment, non-positive public attitudes toward AVs are more pressing than the challenge of deciding upon their ethical behaviors in rare moral dilemmas.