Technologically facilitated remoteness increases killing behavior

Rutchick, Abraham M.; McManus, Ryan M.; Barth, Denise M; Youmans, Robert J.; Ainsworth, Andrew T.; Goukassian, H. Johnny

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.07.001

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The implication is that the act of remote killing is less psychologically distressing than conventional combat. Supporting this, other research reports that medical doctors are more willing to recommend risky and painful procedures (Lee, Fruchter, and Dabbish 2015) and college students are more willing to kill ladybugs (Rutchick et al 2017) when making these decisions via video rather than in person (though, importantly, individuals differ in their susceptibility to these effects). Taken together, these findings suggest that technological mediation creates a form of psychological distance (Liberman, Trope, and Stephan 2007) that lowers moral sensitivity to others.…”

Section: Automated Negotiators As Proxiesmentioning

confidence: 85%

The Promise and Peril of Automated Negotiators

Gratch¹

2021

Negotiation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovations in artificial intelligence are enabling a new class of applications that can negotiate with people through chat or spoken language. Developed in close collaboration with behavioral science research, these algorithms can detect, mimic, and leverage human psychology, enabling them to undertake such functions as the detection of common mistakes made by novice negotiators. These algorithms can simulate the cognitive processes that shape human negotiations and make use of these models to influence negotiated outcomes. This article reviews some of the scientific advances enabling this technology and discusses how it is being used to advance negotiation research, teaching, and practice.

show abstract

Section: Automated Negotiators As Proxiesmentioning

confidence: 85%

The Promise and Peril of Automated Negotiators

Gratch¹

2021

Negotiation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior research has mostly followed an experimental approach based on human subject studies to gauge people's moral decisions. To avoid the ethical difficulties of running experiments about life and death situations, most of the earlier work asked participants to make a moral choice or judgment in the context of hypothetical (Greene et al, 2001;Mikhail, 2007) or presumably real (Rutchick et al, 2017;Bostyn et al, 2018) moral dilemma scenarios. In the context of selfdriving cars, prior work has studied participants' choices in hypothetical scenarios (Awad et al, 2018;McManus and Rutchick, 2019) and virtual reality simulations (Pan and Slater, 2011;Francis et al, 2016;Faulhaber et al, 2019).…”

Section: Experimental Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk of Injury in Moral Dilemmas With Autonomous Vehicles

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As autonomous machines, such as automated vehicles (AVs) and robots, become pervasive in society, they will inevitably face moral dilemmas where they must make decisions that risk injuring humans. However, prior research has framed these dilemmas in starkly simple terms, i.e., framing decisions as life and death and neglecting the influence of risk of injury to the involved parties on the outcome. Here, we focus on this gap and present experimental work that systematically studies the effect of risk of injury on the decisions people make in these dilemmas. In four experiments, participants were asked to program their AVs to either save five pedestrians, which we refer to as the utilitarian choice, or save the driver, which we refer to as the nonutilitarian choice. The results indicate that most participants made the utilitarian choice but that this choice was moderated in important ways by perceived risk to the driver and risk to the pedestrians. As a second contribution, we demonstrate the value of formulating AV moral dilemmas in a game-theoretic framework that considers the possible influence of others’ behavior. In the fourth experiment, we show that participants were more (less) likely to make the utilitarian choice, the more utilitarian (nonutilitarian) other drivers behaved; furthermore, unlike the game-theoretic prediction that decision-makers inevitably converge to nonutilitarianism, we found significant evidence of utilitarianism. We discuss theoretical implications for our understanding of human decision-making in moral dilemmas and practical guidelines for the design of autonomous machines that solve these dilemmas while, at the same time, being likely to be adopted in practice.

show abstract

Technologically facilitated remoteness increases killing behavior

Cited by 2 publications

References 22 publications

The Promise and Peril of Automated Negotiators

The Promise and Peril of Automated Negotiators

Risk of Injury in Moral Dilemmas With Autonomous Vehicles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About