Science of Emotion and Sensibility (감성과학)

Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility (한국감성과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Who Should Live? Autonomous Vehicles and Moral Decision-Making

자율주행차와 윤리적 의사결정: 누가 사는 것이 더 합당한가?

  • Received : 2019.08.22
  • Accepted : 2019.10.21
  • Published : 2019.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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.

자율주행차는 운전자의 부주의로 인한 사고를 줄일 수 있는 반면, 기계에 어느 정도의 자율성을 허용해야 할 것인지의 문제를 제기한다. 특히 돌발상황의 발생시에 운전자와 보행자 중에서 누구를 선택해야 할 것인지에 대한 의사결정은 모두가 합당하다고 생각하는 도덕적 원칙을 기반으로 일관적으로 실시되어야 한다. 본 연구(N = 103)에서는 한국 사회에서 자율주행차의 윤리적 의사결정을 프로그래밍한다고 가정했을 때, 의사결정과정에 영향을 끼칠 수 있는 개인적/상황적 변인을 검증하였다. 이에 따라 개인적 변인으로서 참가자의 자율주행차의 자동화 기술에 대한 수용도를 측정한 후, 상황적 변인으로 문장완성과제를 통해 참가자에게 성취 또는 배려의 가치를 활성화시켰다. 이후 자율주행차의 사고상황에서 공리주의 의사결정의 비율 및 자율주행차 구매의향이 어떻게 달라지는지를 설문지를 통해 비교하였다. 그 결과 연구참가자에게 성취의 가치를 활성화시켰을 때, 자신이 차 안의 운전자로 가정된 상황에서 다수의 보행자를 배려하는 공리주의 의사결정의 비율이 가장 낮게 나타났다. 또한 연구참가자가 자율자동차 기술을 긍정적으로 생각할수록 공리주의 원칙으로 설계된 자율주행차의 구매의향이 전반적으로 높았지만, 성취-운전자 조건에서 참가자의 구매의향이 다른 조건보다 유의하게 낮게 나타났다. 이 결과는 자율주행차의 사고상황에서 의사결정의 과정이 개인적 변인뿐만 아니라 특정 상황에서 활성화된 가치 및 관점의 차이에 따라 영향을 받을 가능성을 시사한다. 논의에서는 연구결과의 제한점 및 후속 연구방향에 관해 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207-1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254602
  2. Bonnefon, J., Shariff A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293), 1573-1576. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2654
  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
  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.
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
  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.