Human Cooperation When Acting Through Autonomous Machines

Significance Autonomous machines that act on our behalf—such as robots, drones, and autonomous vehicles—are quickly becoming a reality. These machines will face situations where individual interest conflicts with collective interest, and it is critical we understand if people will cooperate when acting through them. Here we show, in the increasingly popular domain of autonomous vehicles, that people program their vehicles to be more cooperative than they would if driving themselves. This happens because programming machines causes selfish short-term rewards to become less salient, and that encourages cooperation. Our results further indicate that personal experience influences how machines are programmed. Finally, we show that this effect generalizes beyond the domain of autonomous vehicles and we discuss theoretical and practical implications. Recent times have seen an emergence of intelligent machines that act autonomously on our behalf, such as autonomous vehicles. Despite promises of increased efficiency, it is not clear whether this paradigm shift will change how we decide when our self-interest (e.g., comfort) is pitted against the collective interest (e.g., environment). Here we show that acting through machines changes the way people solve these social dilemmas and we present experimental evidence showing that participants program their autonomous vehicles to act more cooperatively than if they were driving themselves. We show that this happens because programming causes selfish short-term rewards to become less salient, leading to considerations of broader societal goals. We also show that the programmed behavior is influenced by past experience. Finally, we report evidence that the effect generalizes beyond the domain of autonomous vehicles. We discuss implications for designing autonomous machines that contribute to a more cooperative society.

[1]  Robots. The social life of robots. Introduction. , 2014, Science.

[2]  Jonathan Gratch,et al.  Interpersonal effects of expressed anger and sorrow in morally charged negotiation , 2014, Judgment and Decision Making.

[3]  L. Felkins The Social Dilemmas , 2015 .

[4]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game , 2003, Science.

[5]  P. Tetlock,et al.  The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  Dean S. Karlan,et al.  Tying Odysseus to the Mast: Evidence from a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines , 2005 .

[7]  Marc S. Lavine,et al.  The social life of robots , 2014 .

[8]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[9]  Dirk P. Janssen,et al.  Gender Differences in Cooperation and Competition , 2007, Psychological science.

[10]  Elizabeth A. Mannix,et al.  Resource dilemmas and discount rates in decision making groups , 1991 .

[11]  Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis,et al.  Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk , 2010, Judgment and Decision Making.

[12]  Y. Trope,et al.  Construal-level theory of psychological distance. , 2010, Psychological review.

[13]  P. V. Lange,et al.  The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. , 1999 .

[14]  Cynthia Barnhart,et al.  Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of Virtue and Vice , 1998 .

[15]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  From Here to Autonomy , 2017, Hum. Factors.

[16]  V. Smith Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics , 2003 .

[17]  Melvin J. Kimmel,et al.  Twenty Years of Experimental Gaming: Critique,Synthesis, and Suggestions for the Future , 1977 .

[18]  Emir Kamenica,et al.  Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence From a Speed Dating Experiment , 2006 .

[19]  Siegfried Dewitte,et al.  Self-Control and Cooperation: Different Concepts, Similar Decisions? A Question of the Right Perspective , 2001, The Journal of psychology.

[20]  V. Smith,et al.  Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games , 2000 .

[21]  Ryan O. Murphy,et al.  Measuring Social Value Orientation , 2011, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[22]  J. Os,et al.  Online mentalising investigated with functional MRI , 2009, Neuroscience Letters.

[23]  S. Blount When Social Outcomes Aren't Fair: The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences , 1995 .

[24]  Fredrik Björklund,et al.  moraL concerns are greater For temporaLLy Distant eVents anD are moDerateD by VaLUe strength , 2009 .

[25]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review , 2002 .

[26]  C. Dreu,et al.  Psychological distance boosts value-behavior correspondence in ultimatum bargaining and integrative negotiation , 2010 .

[27]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles , 2015, Science.

[28]  D. G. Pruitt Motivational processes in the decomposed Prisoner's Dilemma game. , 1970 .

[29]  Noah J. Goldstein,et al.  Social influence: compliance and conformity. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[30]  P. Kujal,et al.  Gender Differences in Cooperation and Competition , 2015 .

[31]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Construal levels and self-control. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  H. Oosterbeek,et al.  Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis , 2001 .

[33]  D. Ariely,et al.  Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment , 2002, Psychological science.

[34]  L. Ross,et al.  The Name of the Game: Predictive Power of Reputations versus Situational Labels in Determining Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Moves , 2004, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[35]  Fredrik Björklund,et al.  Temporal Distance and Moral Concerns: Future Morally Questionable Behavior is Perceived as More Wrong and Evokes Stronger Prosocial Intentions , 2009 .

[36]  Jonathan Gratch,et al.  Welcome to the Real World: How Agent Strategy Increases Human Willingness to Deceive , 2018, AAMAS.

[37]  Robert J. Wood,et al.  Science, technology and the future of small autonomous drones , 2015, Nature.

[38]  Carsten K. W. De Dreu,et al.  Getting stuck or stepping back: effects of obstacles and construal level in the negotiation of creative solutions , 2009 .

[39]  Katherine V. Kortenkamp,et al.  Time, Uncertainty, and Individual Differences in Decisions to Cooperate in Resource Dilemmas , 2006, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[40]  V. Smith,et al.  Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games: Reply , 1999 .

[41]  W. Güth,et al.  Ultimatum bargaining behavior : a survey and comparison of experimental results , 1990 .

[42]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Negotiation from a near and distant time perspective. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[43]  Stacy Marsella,et al.  Social decisions and fairness change when people’s interests are represented by autonomous agents , 2018, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[44]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications , 2012, Judgment and Decision Making.

[45]  J. Joireman,et al.  Environmental Problems as Social Dilemmas: The Temporal Dimension , 2006 .

[46]  M. Mitchell Waldrop,et al.  Autonomous vehicles: No drivers required , 2015, Nature.

[47]  Brent Simpson,et al.  Sex, Fear, and Greed: A Social Dilemma Analysis of Gender and Cooperation , 2003 .

[48]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. , 1998 .

[49]  Fabian Winter,et al.  A sociological perspective on measuring social norms by means of strategy method experiments , 2009 .