IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/custns/v6y2019i1d10.1007_s40547-019-00093-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using the Double Transparency of Autonomous Vehicles to Increase Fairness and Social Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Jie Xu

    (Fudan University)

  • Min Ding

    (The Pennsylvania State University)

Abstract

Fully autonomous vehicles (AVs) create double transparency regarding human driving decisions. Opaque decision rules in the human mind have become transparent in AVs, and in turn, can be made transparent to third parties. This double transparency is creating an unprecedented opportunity to regulate driving decision rules to eliminate unreasonable selfishness and increase fairness and social welfare because AVs can be programmed to follow regulations 100% of the time. In this experimental ethics study, we performed an incentive aligned online experiment to examine humans’ willingness to sacrifice other people’s lives to protect their own in five different accident scenarios and to investigate the potential for AV regulation to curb unreasonable selfishness, thereby increasing fairness and social welfare. Our results reveal the need to regulate rules governing AV driving decisions; yet, a full transparency policy for decision algorithms may not necessarily lead to desired social effects. Thus, regulations should be tailored to different scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Jie Xu & Min Ding, 2019. "Using the Double Transparency of Autonomous Vehicles to Increase Fairness and Social Welfare," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 6(1), pages 26-35, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:custns:v:6:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40547-019-00093-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40547-019-00093-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40547-019-00093-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40547-019-00093-2?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. Stefano DellaVigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier, 2012. "Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 1-56.
    2. repec:feb:framed:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew J. Schneider & Shawn Mankad, 2021. "A Two-Stage Authorship Attribution Method Using Text and Structured Data for De-Anonymizing User-Generated Content," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 8(3), pages 66-83, September.
    2. Shiri Melumad & Rhonda Hadi & Christian Hildebrand & Adrian F. Ward, 2020. "Technology-Augmented Choice: How Digital Innovations Are Transforming Consumer Decision Processes," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 7(3), pages 90-101, October.
    3. Shiri Melumad & Rhonda Hadi & Christian Hildebrand & Adrian F. Ward, 2021. "Technology-Augmented Choice: How Digital Innovations Are Transforming Consumer Decision Processes," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 7(3), pages 90-101, October.

    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. Mujcic, Redzo & Frijters, Paul, 2013. "Still Not Allowed on the Bus: It Matters If You're Black or White!," IZA Discussion Papers 7300, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Daniel Agness & Travis Baseler & Sylvain Chassang & Pascaline Dupas & Erik Snowberg, 2022. "Valuing the Time of the Self-Employed," CESifo Working Paper Series 9567, CESifo.
    3. Silva,Joana C. G. & Morgandi,Matteo & Levin,Victoria, 2016. "Trust in government and support for redistribution," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7675, The World Bank.
    4. Linardi, Sera & McConnell, Margaret A., 2011. "No excuses for good behavior: Volunteering and the social environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 445-454.
    5. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. Jochimsen, Beate, 2019. "Christmas lights in Berlin: New empirical evidence for the private provision of a public good," FiFo Discussion Papers - Finanzwissenschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 19-04, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.
    7. Hart, Oliver D. & Zingales, Luigi, 2017. "Companies Should Maximize Shareholder Welfare Not Market Value," Working Papers 267, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    8. Hungerman, Daniel & Rinz, Kevin & Weninger, Tim & Yoon, Chungeun, 2018. "Political campaigns and church contributions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 403-426.
    9. Aycinena, Diego & Bogliacino, Francesco & Kimbrough, Erik O., 2024. "Measuring norms: Assessing the threat of social desirability bias to the Bicchieri and Xiao elicitation method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 225-239.
    10. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    11. Victor Iajya & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2012. "The Effects of Information, Social and Economic Incentives on Voluntary Undirected Blood Donations: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Argentina," NBER Working Papers 18630, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Jean-Marc Bourgeon & José de Sousa & Alexis Noir-Luhalwe, 2022. "Social Distancing and Risk Taking: Evidence from a Team Game Show [Distanciation sociale et prise de risque : Les résultats d'un jeu d'équipe]," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03792423, HAL.
    13. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    14. Catia Batista & Janis Umblijs, 2016. "Do migrants send remittances as a way of self-insurance?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 68(1), pages 108-130.
    15. Meer, Jonathan, 2017. "Does fundraising create new giving?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 82-93.
    16. Alain Cohn & Tobias Gesche & Michel André Maréchal, 2022. "Honesty in the Digital Age," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 827-845, February.
    17. Arbel, Yuval & Bar-El, Ronen & Schwarz, Mordechai E. & Tobol, Yossef, 2019. "To What Do People Contribute? Ongoing Operations vs. Sustainable Supplies," IZA Discussion Papers 12180, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Al-Ubaydli, Omar & Yeomans, Mike, 2017. "Do people donate more when they perceive a single beneficiary whom they know? A field experimental test of the identifiability effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 96-103.
    19. Claire Teunenbroek & René Bekkers & Bianca Beersma, 2021. "They ought to do it too: Understanding effects of social information on donation behavior and mood," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 229-253, June.
    20. Yohanes E. Riyanto & Jianlin Zhang, 2016. "Putting a price tag on others’ perceptions of us," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(2), pages 480-499, June.

    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:spr:custns:v:6:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40547-019-00093-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.