Moral judgements on human and autonomous drivers’ decisions in unavoidable collisions scenarios

Moral and ethical issues are constantly arising in assessing the perception of autonomous vehicles and their “behaviour” in daily traffic situations. A debated question is how individuals perceive the choices taken by autonomous vehicles (AVs) in life-threatening scenarios. In an online experiment (N = 232) we tested whether the actions taken by an AV or a human driver in realistic road-accident scenarios are judged according to different standards. In addition, multiple factors were manipulated, such as the number of pedestrians crossing the road, the number of occupants inside the vehicle and the outcome of the choice. The results highlight a preference for human agents with respect to AVs. In addition, there is a significant difference in the type of agent, with respect to the utilitarian principle. The human self-sacrifice attitude is appreciated to a different degree, according to the type of individuals saved (pedestrians or occupants), but is confirmed to be a powerful factor in moral evaluations. The results might have implications for increasing acceptability of AVs.