Blame attribution and intentionality perception of human versus robot drivers: Implications for judgments about autonomous vehicles in moral dilemma contexts

Figures & data

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for blame and intentionality judgments towards each driver in Study 2.

	Humanness of main
	Human		Robot
	Humanness of Sub		Humanness of Sub
	Human	Robot	Human	Robot
Target of rating	HH n = 90	HR n = 80	RH n = 80	RR n = 83
Blame
Main driver	5.92	5.93	5.32	5.15
	(0.96)	(0.88)	(1.33)	(1.43)
Sub driver	5.03	4.50	5.74	5.02
	(1.10)	(1.35)	(1.08)	(1.32)
Perceived Intentionality
Main driver	4.70	4.74	3.70	3.58
	(1.82)	(1.67)	(1.99)	(1.96)
Sub driver	4.76	3.87	4.25	3.87
	(1.77)	(1.90)	(2.15)	(1.98)

Note. Ratings of human drivers are in bold typeface. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses.

Figure 1. Mediation analyses with main driver and sub driver, respectively, in Study 2.

Note. ‘Human’ and ‘Robot’ were dummy coded as ‘1’ and ‘0’, respectively. For both main and sub drivers, the humanness effect on blame judgments was partially accounted for by the difference in perceived intentionality. Standardized coefficients are shown. Total effects are presented in parentheses. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

Figure 1 presents two panels of mediation paths: (a) Main Driver and (b) Sub Driver. Each panel illustrates the mediation effect through perceived intentionality from human vs robot to blame judgment.

Data availability statement

The data and materials described in this article are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org10.17605/OSF.IO/7V4UD.