ABSTRACT
Over the coming years, AI could increasingly replace humans for making complex decisions because of the promise it holds for standardizing and debiasing decision-making procedures. Despite intense debates regarding algorithmic fairness, little research has examined how laypeople react when resource-allocation decisions are turned over to AI. We address this question by examining the role of perceived impartiality as a factor that can influence the acceptance of AI as a replacement for human decision-makers. We posit that laypeople attribute greater impartiality to AI than human decision-makers. Our investigation shows that people value impartiality in decision procedures that concern the allocation of scarce resources and that people perceive AI as more capable of impartiality than humans. Yet, paradoxically, laypeople prefer human decision-makers in allocation decisions. This preference reverses when potential human biases are made salient. The findings highlight the importance of impartiality in AI and thus hold implications for the design of policy measures.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Vaccination against Covid-19 has become an increasingly polarizing issue in western democracies. While much research has focused on social-psychological determinants of vaccine hesitancy, less is known about the attitudes and behaviors of the vaccinated populations towards those who are unvaccinated. Building on Weiner's attribution theory (2005, 1985, 1980), we predict that vaccination status determines the attribution of personal responsibility and blame in Covid-19 social dilemmas. This in turn explains people's affective and behavioral responses towards those who have fallen ill or infected others with COVID-19. APPROACH: Through two preregistered experiments (total N = 1200) we show that people attribute greater personal responsibility when unvaccinated (vs. vaccinated) people fall ill from, or infect others with COVID-19. This attribution of responsibility manifested in less sympathy towards unvaccinated COVID-19 patients, which was associated with a lower willingness to help patients and their families (Study 1). Likewise, higher perceived responsibility results in greater anger towards unvaccinated people who had (involuntarily) infected others with the virus, which was associated with a greater desire for punitive actions (Study 2). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that unvaccinated people experience blame as well as negative attitudes and behaviors from the vaccinated population. This could in turn strengthen people's refusal to get vaccinated and increase polarization between vaccine supporters and vaccine critics.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Social Behavior , Vaccination/psychologyABSTRACT
The introduction of new policies can evoke strong emotional reactions by the public. Yet, social-psychological research has paid little attention to affective determinants of individual-level policy acceptance. Building on recent theoretical and empirical advances around emotions and decision-making, we evaluate how people's trust and integral emotions function as important antecedents of cognitive evaluations, and subsequent acceptance of policies. We test our hypotheses within a sample of Irish citizens (n = 505), who were subject to the introduction of water charges in 2015. In line with our hypotheses, results show that general trust in government shapes emotions regarding water charges, which in turn, directly and via expected costs and benefits, influence policy acceptance. Additionally, we find that negative emotions have a larger direct effect on policy acceptance than positive emotions. Specifically, 'anger' was the main negative emotion that influenced the acceptance of the water charge. We conclude by discussing directions for future research around emotions and policy acceptance.
