Scholarlink

<p>Autonomous weapon systems (AWS) are emerging technologies capable of selecting and engaging targets without direct human control, raising profound ethical, legal, and political concerns. Yet, little is known about how the public conceptualizes AWS, despite the relevance of public conscience for international humanitarian law and national policy-making. This study examines Austrian representations of AWS in comparison with manual weapon systems (MWS), using a within-subjects free-word association task (<i>N</i> = 200) analyzed through content analysis, Hierarchical Evocation Method (HEM), Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), Mantel tests, and Procrustes analyses. Findings reveal that MWS are coherently represented around pragmatic and destructive functions, whereas the central core of the AWS representation is dominated by the category ‘Unknown’. This suggests that respondents are largely unable to anchor AWS to familiar cognitive, moral, or technological schemas. Structural analyses confirm this finding, indicating AWS and MWS to constitute distinct representational fields. These results highlight the cognitive indeterminacy of AWS, illustrating how uncertainty shapes public reasoning and raising implications for democratic legitimacy and international governance.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

From tools of violence to machines of uncertainty: mapping public perceptions of autonomous weapon systems and manual weapon systems

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月22日

查看全文
  • Rita Phillips

摘要

Autonomous weapon systems (AWS) are emerging technologies capable of selecting and engaging targets without direct human control, raising profound ethical, legal, and political concerns. Yet, little is known about how the public conceptualizes AWS, despite the relevance of public conscience for international humanitarian law and national policy-making. This study examines Austrian representations of AWS in comparison with manual weapon systems (MWS), using a within-subjects free-word association task (N = 200) analyzed through content analysis, Hierarchical Evocation Method (HEM), Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), Mantel tests, and Procrustes analyses. Findings reveal that MWS are coherently represented around pragmatic and destructive functions, whereas the central core of the AWS representation is dominated by the category ‘Unknown’. This suggests that respondents are largely unable to anchor AWS to familiar cognitive, moral, or technological schemas. Structural analyses confirm this finding, indicating AWS and MWS to constitute distinct representational fields. These results highlight the cognitive indeterminacy of AWS, illustrating how uncertainty shapes public reasoning and raising implications for democratic legitimacy and international governance.