Improving the Public's Perception of Autonomous Vehicles by Communicating the Consistency of Autonomous Vehicle Algorithms

Abstract

Despite autonomous vehicles (AVs) being safer than human drivers, people are averse to their presence on roads. Across three studies (N = 4,014), we examined peoples’ perceptions of human drivers and AVs acting within a moral dilemma. Scenarios involved an out-of-control vehicle (piloted by a human, or autonomously) that could stay on its present course and hit five pedestrians, or swerve and hit a single stranger. Participants were given a description of the pilot’s final action and then judged them on several dimensions (e.g., blame, acceptability, predictability). We find evidence of AV aversion across all studies, with participants judging AVs more negatively (e.g., more blameworthy) than human drivers despite performing identical actions. Additionally, Studies 1 and 2 presented some participants with a statement outlining the consistency of AV algorithms, which increased perceived predictability and reduced AV aversion in some cases. In Study 3, some participants were given scenarios in which control of the vehicle was transferred prior to a pilot’s actions. Participants’ were averse to this transfer, as both AVs and human drivers were perceived as less predictable and judged more negatively after taking control of the vehicle. Overall, our findings highlight peoples’ aversion to autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles, while also demonstrating that messages highlighting the consistency of AV algorithms have the potential to improve perceptions and thus reduce barriers for their eventual mass adoption.