Hashimoto Hirofumi, Maeda Kaede, Matsumura Kaede
Graduate School of Literature and Human Sciences, Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan.
Urban-Culture Research Center, Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan.
Front Psychol. 2022 Mar 3;13:795732. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.795732. eCollection 2022.
In the trolley problem, a well-known moral dilemma, the intuitive process is believed to increase deontological judgments, while deliberative reasoning is thought to promote utilitarian decisions. Therefore, based on the dual-process model, there seems to be an attempt to save several lives at the expense of a few others in a deliberative manner. This study examines the validity of this argument. To this end, we manipulate decision-making time in the standard trolley dilemma to compare differences among 119 Japanese female undergraduates under three conditions: intuitive judgment, deliberative judgment, and judgment after a group discussion. The current results demonstrate that utilitarian judgments decreased from 52.9% in the intuition condition to 43.7% in the deliberation condition and 37.0% after the discussion. Additional analysis suggests that the decrease in utilitarian judgments may be related to psychological unwillingness to assume responsibility for the lives of others rather than to an increase in deontological judgments. Finally, these results are discussed from an adaptationist perspective.
在电车难题（一个著名的道德困境）中，人们认为直觉过程会增加道义论判断，而审慎推理则会促进功利主义决策。因此，基于双过程模型，似乎存在一种以牺牲少数人为代价来审慎地拯救多条生命的尝试。本研究检验了这一论点的有效性。为此，我们在标准电车困境中操纵决策时间，以比较119名日本女大学生在三种条件下的差异：直觉判断、审慎判断和小组讨论后的判断。当前结果表明，功利主义判断从直觉条件下的52.9%降至审慎条件下的43.7%，在讨论后降至37.0%。进一步分析表明，功利主义判断的下降可能与心理上不愿意为他人的生命承担责任有关，而非与道义论判断的增加有关。最后，从适应主义的角度对这些结果进行了讨论。
