Human-in-the-loop by default? Demography, ideology, and civic commitment in the acceptance of autonomous security robots across risk scenarios

As security-oriented unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) move from controlled trials into operational settings, their deployment hinges on social legitimacy. This study empirically maps Czech public preferences for human-supervised versus autonomous UGVs across 11 deployment scenarios spanning public-space presence, critical-infrastructure protection, border and policing tasks, rescue operations, and military contexts. Using a CAWI survey of 1250 residents aged 15+, we pair scenario-based comparisons with a logistic regression model of willingness to defend the country as a behavioural proxy for security orientation. Results indicate a “human-oversight default” in high-stakes contexts: respondents favor retaining accountable human agency where civilians may be affected or force could be used. Openness to autonomy concentrates in bounded, risk-reducing applications where automation can substitute for human exposure. Preferences vary by demographic profile and ideological self-placement, with militarist respondents generally more supportive of autonomy, pacifists selectively accepting non-lethal automation, and neutral respondents exhibiting the highest uncertainty. Willingness to defend is implied with stronger demands for human accountability and thus, it is predicted by demographic and attitudinal factors. The findings advance technology-foresight research by integrating scenario-based risk appraisal, ideology, and civic commitment into a socio-technical acceptance framework that informs phased deployment, transparent oversight, and trust-centred design for public-facing security UGVs.