Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14695/KJSOS.2019.22.4.15

Who Should Live? Autonomous Vehicles and Moral Decision-Making  

Shin, Hong Im (영남대학교 교양학부)
Publication Information
Science of Emotion and Sensibility / v.22, no.4, 2019 , pp. 15-30 More about this Journal
Abstract
The reduction of traffic accidents is a primary potential benefit of autonomous vehicles (AVs). However, the prevalence of AVs also arouses a key question: to what extent should a human wrest control back from AVs? Specifically, in an unavoidable situation of emergency, should an AV be able to decide between the safety of its own passengers and endangered pedestrians? Should AV programming include well-accepted decision rules about actionsto take in hypothetical situations? The current study (N = 103) examined individual/situational variables that could perform critical decision-making roles in AV related traffic accidents. The individual variable of attitudes toward AVs was assessed using the Self-driving Car Acceptance Scale. To investigate situational influences on decisional processes, the study's participants were assigned to one of two groups: the achievement value was activated in one group and the benevolence value was triggered in the other through the use of a sentence completion task. Thereafter, participants were required to indicate who should be protected from injury: the passengers of the concerned AV, or endangered pedestrians. Participants were also asked to record the extent to which they intended to buy an AV programmed to decide in favor of the greater good according to Utilitarian principles. The results suggested that participants in the "achievement value: driver perspective" groupexpressed the lowest willingness to sacrifice themselves to save several pedestrians in an unavoidable traffic accident. This group of participants was also the most reluctant to buy an AV programmed with utilitarian rules, even though there were significant positive relationships between members' acceptance of AVs and their expressed intention to purchase one. These findings highlight the role of the decisional processes involved in the "achievement value" pertaining to AVs. The paper finally records the limitations of the present study and suggests directions for future research.
Keywords
Autonomous Vehicles; Utilitarianism; Decision Making; Value;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207-1221.   DOI
2 Bonnefon, J., Shariff A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293), 1573-1576. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2654   DOI
3 Byun, S. (2017). An approach to ethical guidelines of autonomous vehicle. Journal of Ethics, 112, 199-216. DOI: 10.15801/je.1.112.201703.199
4 Chae, J. (2017). The effects of shopping value, ease of use, and usefulness on mobile purchase intention. Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 20(2), 73-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14695/KJSOS.2017.20.2.73   DOI
5 Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclination in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216-235. DOI: 10.1037/a0031021.   DOI
6 Choi, N., Ahn, R., & Na, G. (2011). A Study of thinking style and consumption behavior in comsumer's decision making. Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 14(2), 279-292.
7 Fitzsimons, G. M, & Shah, J. Y. (2008). How goal instrumentality shapes relationship evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 319-337. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.319   DOI
8 Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027   DOI
9 Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107(3), 1144-1154. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004   DOI
10 Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105-2108. DOI: 10.1126/science.1062872   DOI
11 Greene, J. D. (2009). Dual-Process morality and the personal/impersonal distinction: A reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and Mackenzie. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 581-584. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.01.003   DOI
12 Greene. J. D. (2016). Our driverless dilemma: When should your car be willing to kill you? Science, 352(6393), 1514-1515. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf9534   DOI
13 Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814   DOI
14 Hart, W., & Albarracin, D. (2009). The effects of chronic motivation and achievement primes on the activation of achievement and fun goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1129-1141. DOI: 10.1037/a0017146   DOI
15 Joo, M., & Lee, J. (2013). Differential effects of self-relevance levels on framing effects in decision making, Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 16(2), 177-186.
16 Karnoukos, S. (2018). Self-driving car acceptance and the role of ethics. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 99, 1-14. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2018.2877307
17 Koop, G. J. (2013). An assessment of the temporal dynamics of moral decisions. Judgement and Decision Making, 8(5), 527-539.
18 Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., Arnold, T., Voiklis, J., & Cusimano, C. (2015). Sacrifice one for the good of many? People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 117-124. DOI: 10.1145/2696454.2696458
19 Lee, J. (2016). How the technology of autonomous driving affects the scope and level of driver's duty of care and the necessity for embedding ethical ability in autonomous vehicles. Hongik Law Review, 17(4), 445-472. DOI: 10.16960/jhlr.17.4.201612.443
20 Maio, G. R., Pakizeh, A., Cheung, W.-Y., & Rees, K. J. (2009). Changing, priming, acting on values: Effects via motivational relations in a circular Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 699-715. DOI: 10.1037/a0016420   DOI
21 Nees, M. A. (2016). Acceptance of self-driving cars: An examination of idealized versus realistic portrayals with a self-driving car acceptance scale. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 1449-1453. DOI: 10.1177/1541931213601332
22 Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.   DOI
23 Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying the theory of integrated value systems (Vol. 8). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24 Sutfeld, R., Gast, R., Konig, P., & Gordon, P. (2017). Using virtual reality to assess ethical decisions in road traffic scenarios: Applicability of value-of-life-based models and influences of time pressure. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 1-13. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00122.
25 Waldrop, M. M. (2015). Autonomous vehicles: No drivers required. Nature, 518(7357), 20-23. DOI: 10.1038/518020a.   DOI