AI Chat Paper
Discover the SciOpen Platform and Achieve Your Research Goals with Ease.
Search articles, authors, keywords, DOl and etc.
{{expandStatus?'Exit ':''}}Advanced Search
The present study examined the impact of aging on ethical decision-making in simulated critical driving scenarios. 204 participants from North America, grouped into two age groups (18–30 years and 65 years and above), were asked to decide whether their simulated automated vehicle should stay in or change from the current lane in scenarios mimicking the Trolley Problem. Each participant viewed a video clip rendered by the driving simulator at Old Dominion University and pressed the space-bar if they decided to intervene in the control of the simulated automated vehicle in an online experiment. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to analyze participants’ responses, response time, and acceptability of utilitarian ethical decision-making. The results showed significant pedestrian placement, age, and time-to-collision (TTC) effects on participants’ ethical decisions. When pedestrians were in the right lane, participants were more likely to switch lanes, indicating a utilitarian approach prioritizing pedestrian safety. Younger participants were more likely to switch lanes in general compared to older participants. The results imply that older drivers can maintain their ability to respond to ethically fraught scenarios with their tendency to switch lanes more frequently than younger counterparts, even when the tasks interacting with an automated driving system. The current findings may inform the development of decision algorithms for intelligent and connected vehicles by considering potential ethical dilemmas faced by human drivers across different age groups.
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., et al., 2018. The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563, 59–64.
Bonnefon, J. F., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I., 2016. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352, 1573–1576.
Brown, S. C., Park, D. C., 2003. Theoretical models of cognitive aging and implications for translational research in medicine. Gerontologist, 43, 57–67.
Conway, P., Gawronski, B., 2013. Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: a process dissociation approach. J Pers Soc Psychol, 104, 216–235.
Faulhaber, A. K., Dittmer, A., Blind, F., Wächter, M. A., Timm, S., Sütfeld, L. R., et al., 2019. Human decisions in moral dilemmas are largely described by utilitarianism: Virtual car driving study provides guidelines for autonomous driving vehicles. Sci Eng Ethics, 25, 399–418.
Gaspar, J. G., Neider, M. B., Kramer, A. F., 2013. Falls risk and simulated driving performance in older adults. Aging Res, 2013, 356948.
Goodall, N., 2014a. Ethical decision making during automated vehicle crashes. Transp Res Rec, 2424, 58–65.
Gray, K., Schein, C., 2012. Two minds vs. two philosophies: Mind perception defines morality and dissolves the debate between deontology and utilitarianism. Rev Philos Psychol, 3, 405–423.
Gurney, J. K., 2015. Crashing into the unknown: An examination of crash-optimization algorithms through the two lanes of ethics and law. Alb L Rev, 79, 183.
Himmelreich, J., 2018. Never mind the trolley: The ethics of autonomous vehicles in mundane situations. Ethical Theory Moral Pract, 21, 669–684.
Hoffman, L., McDowd, J.M., Atchley, P., Dubinsky, R., 2005. The role of visual attention in predicting driving impairment in older adults. Psychol Aging, 20, 610–622.
Keeling, G., 2018. Legal necessity, Pareto efficiency & justified killing in autonomous vehicle collisions. Ethical Theory Moral Pract, 21, 413–427.
Krügel, S., Uhl, M., 2022. Autonomous vehicles and moral judgments under risk. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract, 155, 1–10.
Madden, D.J., 2007. Aging and visual attention. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 16, 70–74.
Moll, J., Oliveira-Souza, R., 2007. Moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain. Trends Cogn Sci, 11, 319–321.
Mourant, R. R., Rockwell, T. H., 1972. Strategies of visual search by novice and experienced drivers. Hum Factors, 14, 325–335.
Muth, C., Oravecz, Z., Gabry, J., 2018. User-friendly Bayesian regression modeling: A tutorial with rstanarm and shinystan. TQMP, 14, 99–119.
Navarrete, C. D., McDonald, M. M., Mott, M. L., Asher, B., 2012. Virtual morality: Emotion and action in a simulated three-dimensional “trolley problem”. Emotion, 12, 364–370.
Parasuraman, R., Nestor, P. G., 1991. Attention and driving skills in aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Hum Factors 33, 539–557.
Perryman, K. M., Fitten, L. J., 1996. Effects of normal aging on the performance of motor-vehicle operational skills. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol, 9, 136–141.
Samuel, S., Yahoodik, S., Yamani, Y., Valluru, K., Fisher, D. L., 2020. Ethical decision making behind the wheel–a driving simulator study. Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect, 5, 100147.
Skulmowski, A., Bunge, A., Kaspar, K., Pipa, G., 2014. Forced-choice decision-making in modified trolley dilemma situations: a virtual reality and eye tracking study. Front Behav Neurosci, 8, 426.
Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., et al., 2006. A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS One, 1, 1–10.
Sütfeld, L. R., Ehinger, B. V., König, P., Pipa, G., 2019. How does the method change what we measure? Comparing virtual reality and text-based surveys for the assessment of moral decisions in traffic dilemmas. PLoS One, 14, 1–14.
Thomson, J. J., 1976. Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. Monist, 59, 204–217.
Wang, H., Wang, A., Su, F., Schwebel, D.C., 2022. The effect of age and sensation seeking on pedestrian crossing safety in a virtual reality street. Transp Res F, 88, 99–110.
Yahoodik, S., Samuel, S., Yamani, Y., 2021. Ethical decision making under time pressure: An online study. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet, 65, 601–605.
Zhu, A., Yang, S., Chen, Y., Xing, C., 2022. A moral decision-making study of autonomous vehicles: Expertise predicts a preference for algorithms in dilemmas. Pers Individ Differ, 186, 111356.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
京公网安备11010802044758号