Emergence and collapse of reciprocity in semiautomatic driving coordination experiments with humans

Significance Simple and complex forms of machine intelligence are becoming involved in many collective action challenges humans face, including ensuring safety in groups on the move. However, the social repercussions of intelligent assistance are often overlooked. We used a unique cyber-physical lab experiment involving remote-control robotic cars and widely distributed online drivers. We show that autonomous safety systems in cars can degrade the ordinary norms of reciprocity between people. Humans have developed social norms, but these can collapse when people are allowed to leave their coordination decisions to machines.

[1]  T. Rogers,et al.  Lane nucleation in complex active flows , 2023, Science.

[2]  Shuo Feng,et al.  Dense reinforcement learning for safety validation of autonomous vehicles , 2023, Nature.

[3]  H. Shirado Individual and collective learning in groups facing danger , 2022, Scientific Reports.

[4]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  Stewardship of global collective behavior , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Jean‐François Bonnefon,et al.  Bad machines corrupt good morals , 2021, Nature Human Behaviour.

[6]  Iain D Couzin,et al.  Vortex phase matching as a strategy for schooling in robots and in fish , 2020, Nature Communications.

[7]  Claudio Feliciani,et al.  Mutual anticipation can contribute to self-organization in human crowds , 2020, Science Advances.

[8]  Nicholas A Christakis,et al.  Network Engineering Using Autonomous Agents Increases Cooperation in Human Groups , 2020, iScience.

[9]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Intelligent machines as social catalysts , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Brian Scassellati,et al.  Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human–robot team , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  H. Asama,et al.  The Sense of Agency in Driving Automation , 2019, Front. Psychol..

[12]  Javier Alonso-Mora,et al.  Social behavior for autonomous vehicles , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  George Iosifidis,et al.  Assortative mixing and resource inequality enhance collective welfare in sharing networks , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Bahador Bahrami,et al.  Shared responsibility in collective decisions , 2019, Nature Human Behaviour.

[15]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Machine behaviour , 2019, Nature.

[16]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The Emergence of Social Norms and Conventions , 2019, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  Krishnendu Chatterjee,et al.  Indirect reciprocity with private, noisy, and incomplete information , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Erin Brady,et al.  Interdependence as a Frame for Assistive Technology Research and Design , 2018, ASSETS.

[19]  Wendy Ju,et al.  VR-OOM: Virtual Reality On-rOad driving siMulation , 2018, CHI.

[20]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Separation in Logistic Regression: Causes, Consequences, and Control. , 2018, American journal of epidemiology.

[21]  Scott Clifford,et al.  Validity and Mechanical Turk: An assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[22]  P. Richerson,et al.  Collective action and the evolution of social norm internalization , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  N. Christakis,et al.  Locally noisy autonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments , 2017, Nature.

[24]  Jessica B. Cicchino,et al.  Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[25]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Crowd behaviour during high-stress evacuations in an immersive virtual environment , 2016, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[26]  David G. Rand,et al.  Inequality and visibility of wealth in experimental social networks , 2015, Nature.

[27]  I. Couzin,et al.  Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons , 2015, Science.

[28]  Colin R. Twomey,et al.  Revealing the hidden networks of interaction in mobile animal groups allows prediction of complex behavioral contagion , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Manfred Tscheligi,et al.  Towards Autonomous Cars: The Effect of Autonomy Levels on Acceptance and User Experience , 2014, AutomotiveUI.

[30]  David G. Rand,et al.  Direct reciprocity in structured populations , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  David Firth,et al.  Multinomial logit bias reduction via the Poisson log-linear model , 2011 .

[32]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  David G. Rand,et al.  The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market , 2010, ArXiv.

[34]  Kaveh Madani,et al.  Game theory and water resources , 2010 .

[35]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Collective Information Processing and Pattern Formation in Swarms, Flocks, and Crowds , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[36]  D. Helbing,et al.  Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behaviour in humans , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[37]  C. Bicchieri,et al.  Behaving as Expected: Public Information and Fairness Norms , 2008 .

[38]  Jun Tanimoto,et al.  A study on emergence of alternating reciprocity in a 2 × 2 game with 2-length memory strategy , 2007, Biosyst..

[39]  A. Colman,et al.  Evolution of coordinated alternating reciprocity in repeated dyadic games. , 2004, Journal of theoretical biology.

[40]  U. Fischbacher,et al.  Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms , 2002, Human nature.

[41]  R. Boyd,et al.  In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies , 2001 .

[42]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Simulating dynamical features of escape panic , 2000, Nature.

[43]  E. Ostrom Collective action and the evolution of social norms , 2000, Journal of Economic Perspectives.

[44]  T. Yamagishi,et al.  The Group as the Container of Generalized Reciprocity , 2000 .

[45]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[46]  G. Mackie Ending Footbinding and Infibulation: A Convention Account , 1996 .

[47]  Nakayama,et al.  Dynamical model of traffic congestion and numerical simulation. , 1995, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.

[48]  T. W. Ross,et al.  Communication in Coordination Games , 1992 .

[49]  Duncan Snidal,et al.  Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation , 1991, American Political Science Review.

[50]  Robert M. May,et al.  The evolution of cooperation , 1981, Science.

[51]  S. Feld The Focused Organization of Social Ties , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[52]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  REASONING AND A SENSE OF REALITY , 1972 .

[53]  A. Rapoport,et al.  The Game of Chicken , 1966 .

[54]  R. Axelrod,et al.  Evolutionary Dynamics , 2004 .

[55]  R. Sugden The Economics of Rights, Co-Operation, and Welfare , 1986 .