Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday May 29 2017, @06:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the deadly-trolleys dept.

A new study suggests that smartphone users may be more apt to employ utilitarian reasoning in resolving moral problems, rather than adhering to absolute moral principles.

The study, which is published in Computers in Human Behavior, is one of the first studies into the impact of the digital age on moral judgments, and suggests that moral judgments depend on the digital context in which a dilemma is presented and could have significant implications for how we interact with computers.

To investigate how moral judgements are affected by smartphones and PCs, the researchers recruited 1,010 people and presented them with a classic moral dilemma known as the 'Trolley Problem'.

The Trolley Problem typically involves a runaway trolley that will kill a certain number of people on the tracks, unless some action is taken. (It has recently come to broader attention in discussions of the ethics of autonomous vehicles.) In the original version, a switch is present that will allow the trolley to be diverted; but in doing so, it will kill an otherwise innocent bystander who is on the diversion track. In the so-called "fat man" variant, the dilemma allows the possibility of pushing an obese man in front of the trolley to stop it and save a larger number of people down the line.

Before reading further, stop for a moment to think of what you would do.

Studies generally show that many people use utilitarian reasoning and flip the switch in the first scenario to save the larger number of people. But fewer people in studies are generally willing to push the fat man onto the tracks. Philosophers consider this latter response to be a type of deontological reasoning, which values a moral principle above utilitarian calculations (i.e., it is wrong to murder someone, even to save others).

In the new study, participants were required to have both a smartphone and PC to participate. They were randomly assigned to use one or the other for the experiment. There was no statistically significant difference between their responses for the "switch" scenario to the trolley problem (80.9% for the smartphone users vs. 76.9% for the PC users), but a significantly larger number of smartphone users were willing to sacrifice the fat man (33.5% vs. 22.3% for PC users). When under time pressure in a follow-up experiment with 250 new participants, the fat man scenario difference increased (45.7% for smartphone users vs. 20% for PC users).

Dr Albert Barque-Duran, a researcher from the Department of Psychology at City, University of London and lead author of the study, said:

"What we found in our study is that when people used a smartphone to view classic moral problems, they were more likely to make more unemotional, rational decisions when presented with a highly emotional dilemma. This could be due to the increased time pressures often present with smartphones and also the increased psychological distance which can occur when we use such devices compared to PCs.

"Due to the fact that our social lives, work and even shopping takes place online, it is important to think about how the contexts where we typically face ethical decisions and are asked to engage in moral behaviour have changed, and the impact this could have on the hundreds of millions of people who use such devices daily."

Perhaps due to the lead author's characterization of utilitarian reasoning as "rational," a number of news outlets have portrayed the study as concluding that smartphone users are "more rational." (See, for example, coverage at The Daily Mail and Engadget.) However, the conclusion of the full study challenges that idea, noting that the enhanced distinction for smartphone users under time pressure does not accord with the theory that avoiding killing the fat man is only a quick "gut reaction" governed by emotions.

Alternatively, in the past some have argued that trolley problem research is flawed anyway because many respondents find the scenarios silly and may not take them seriously.

Link to original study


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:15AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:15AM (#517553) Journal

    Repair bills. Forget about the cost, I was amazed the first time I saw how much damage is done to a car when it hits a pedestrian. Granted, today's autos are designed to crumple and fold on impact, thus reducing injuries to people inside the vehicle. Even so, it's amazing how much damage a body can do to a car.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2