IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v179y2024ics0965856423003075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public perception of autonomous vehicle capability determines judgment of blame and trust in road traffic accidents

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Qiyuan
  • Wallbridge, Christopher D.
  • Jones, Dylan M.
  • Morgan, Phillip L.

Abstract

Road accidents involving autonomous vehicles (AVs) will not only introduce legal challenges over liability distribution but also generally diminish the public trust that may make itself manifested in slowing the initial adoption of the technology and call into question the continued adoption of the technology. Understanding the public’s reactions to such incidents, especially the way they differentiate from conventional vehicles, is vital for future policy-making and legislation, which will in turn shape the landscape of the autonomous vehicle industry. In this paper, intuitive judgments of blame and trust were investigated in simulated scenarios of road-traffic accidents involving either autonomous vehicles or human-driven vehicles. In an initial study, five of six scenarios showed more blame and less trust attributed to autonomous vehicles, despite the scenarios being identical in antecedents and consequences to those with a human driver. In one scenario this asymmetry was sharply reversed; an anomaly shown in a follow-up experiment to be dependent on the extent to which the incident was more likely to be foreseeable by the human driver. More generally these studies show—rather than being the result of a universal higher performance standard against autonomous vehicles—that blame and trust are shaped by stereotypical conceptions of the capabilities of machines versus humans applied in a context-specific way, which may or may not align with objectively derived state of affairs. These findings point to the necessity of regularly calibrating the public’s knowledge and expectation of autonomous vehicles through educational campaigns and legislative measures mandating user training and timely disclosure from car manufacturers/developers regarding their product capabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Qiyuan & Wallbridge, Christopher D. & Jones, Dylan M. & Morgan, Phillip L., 2024. "Public perception of autonomous vehicle capability determines judgment of blame and trust in road traffic accidents," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:179:y:2024:i:c:s0965856423003075
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2023.103887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856423003075
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103887?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean-François Bonnefon & Azim Shariff & Iyad Rahwan, 2019. "The Trolley, the Bull Bar, and Why Engineers Should Care About the Ethics of Autonomous Cars," Post-Print hal-04121686, HAL.
    2. Edmond Awad & Sohan Dsouza & Richard Kim & Jonathan Schulz & Joseph Henrich & Azim Shariff & Jean-François Bonnefon & Iyad Rahwan, 2018. "The Moral Machine experiment," Nature, Nature, vol. 563(7729), pages 59-64, November.
    3. Jo-Ann Pattinson & Haibo Chen & Subhajit Basu, 2020. "Legal issues in automated vehicles: critically considering the potential role of consent and interactive digital interfaces," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    5. Nastjuk, Ilja & Herrenkind, Bernd & Marrone, Mauricio & Brendel, Alfred Benedikt & Kolbe, Lutz M., 2020. "What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user's perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    6. Edmond Awad & Sydney Levine & Max Kleiman-Weiner & Sohan Dsouza & Joshua B. Tenenbaum & Azim Shariff & Jean-François Bonnefon & Iyad Rahwan, 2020. "Drivers are blamed more than their automated cars when both make mistakes," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 134-143, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Feess, Eberhard & Muehlheusser, Gerd, 2024. "Autonomous Vehicles: Moral dilemmas and adoption incentives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    2. Poszler, Franziska & Geisslinger, Maximilian & Betz, Johannes & Lütge, Christoph, 2023. "Applying ethical theories to the decision-making of self-driving vehicles: A systematic review and integration of the literature," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    3. Jay J. Van Bavel & Katherine Baicker & Paulo S. Boggio & Valerio Capraro & Aleksandra Cichocka & Mina Cikara & Molly J. Crockett & Alia J. Crum & Karen M. Douglas & James N. Druckman & John Drury & Oe, 2020. "Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(5), pages 460-471, May.
    4. Zhai, Siming & Gao, Shan & Wang, Lin & Liu, Peng, 2023. "When both human and machine drivers make mistakes: Whom to blame?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    5. Chen, Changdong, 2024. "How consumers respond to service failures caused by algorithmic mistakes: The role of algorithmic interpretability," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    6. Raman Kachurka & Michał W. Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "Persuasive messages will not raise COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Evidence from a nation-wide online experiment," Working Papers 2021-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    7. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    8. Huaiyuan Zhai & Mengjie Li & Shengyue Hao & Mingli Chen & Lingchen Kong, 2021. "How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-20, May.
    9. Scorgie, Fiona & Khoza, Nomhle & Delany-Moretlwe, Sinead & Velloza, Jennifer & Mangxilana, Nomvuyo & Atujuna, Millicent & Chitukuta, Miria & Matambanadzo, Kudzai V. & Hosek, Sybil & Makhale, Lerato & , 2021. "Narrative sexual histories and perceptions of HIV risk among young women taking PrEP in southern Africa: Findings from a novel participatory method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    10. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    11. Lindgren, Thomas & Pink, Sarah & Fors, Vaike, 2021. "Fore-sighting autonomous driving - An Ethnographic approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    12. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    13. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    14. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    15. Kai Greenlees & Randolph Cornelius, 2021. "The promise of panarchy in managed retreat: converging psychological perspectives and complex adaptive systems theory," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 503-510, September.
    16. Thomas Deroche & Yannick Stephan & Tim Woodman & Christine Le Scanff, 2012. "Psychological Mediators of the Sport Injury—Perceived Risk Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 113-121, January.
    17. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    18. Heather Rosoff & Robert Siko & Richard John & William J. Burns, 2013. "Should I stay or should I go? An experimental study of health and economic government policies following a severe biological agent release," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 121-137, March.
    19. Qian, Lixian & Yin, Juelin & Huang, Youlin & Liang, Ya, 2023. "The role of values and ethics in influencing consumers’ intention to use autonomous vehicle hailing services," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    20. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:179:y:2024:i:c:s0965856423003075. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.