The Chinese and American Students and the Trolley Problem: A Cross-cultural Study
Abstract
People are routinely faced with making decisions. Some decisions are made quickly and easily while others may take reflection and research. Scholars in numerous disciplines such as behavioral economics, marketing, philosophy, psychology, and sociology have attempted to identify the variables that impact people’s ethical/moral choices in the decision-making process. Still, the question of whether people use their heads (rationale) or their hearts (emotions) to make decisions remains unanswered. The present exploratory study hopes to contribute to the discussion on the influence of culture on people’s choices. Working with samples from two cultures (China and USA) and using three variants of the Trolley Problem (Foot 1967), the participants’ responses are used to identify the similarities and differences between their choices. The data suggest that moral decisions are linked to culture. The Chinese participants who are raised in a collectivistic culture seem to have a greater concern for others; the American respondents as products of an individualistic culture are less inclined to interfere in the lives of other people. The data also reveal that gender plays a role in altruistic behavior. Women are more likely to engage in helpful behavior than man. Lastly, the paper discusses the inconsistencies in choices by the respondents.
Full text article
References
Arrow, K. (1963). Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.
Bleske-Rechek, A., L.A. Nelson, J.P. Baker, M.W. Remiker & S.J. Brandt (2010). Evolution and the Trolley Problem: People save five over one unless the one is young, genetically related, or a romantic partner. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 4(3): 115–127.
Bourget, D. & D.J. Chalmers (2014). What do philosophers believe? Philosophical Studies, 170(3): 465–500.
Damasio, A. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Edmonds, D. (2014). Would You Kill the Fat Man? The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us About Right and Wrong. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.
Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review, 5: 5–15.
Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Calculated Risks: How to Know When the Numbers Deceive You. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Goodall, N.J. (2016). Away from trolley problems and toward risk management. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 30(8): 810–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2016.1229922.
Greene, J. D., R.B. Sommerville, L.E. Nystrom, J.M. Darley & J.D. Cohen (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgement. Science. 293: 2105–2108.
Hofstede, G., G.J. Hofstede & M. Minkov (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw Hill.
Kahneman, D. & A. Tversky (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103(3): 582–591.
Lanteri, A., C. Chelini & S. Rizzello (2008). An experimental investigation of emotions and reasoning in the Trolley Problem. Journal of Business Ethics, 83: 789–804.
Mints, P. (2019). The Trump decision on US tariffs and the Trolley Problem. Renewable Energy World, January 23, 2019. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2018/01/the-trump-decision-on-us-tariffs-and-the-trolley-problem.html (accessed July 29, 2020).
Moore, D. (2010). The Basic Practice of Statistics. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Nyholm, S. & J. Smids (2016). The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: An applied trolley problem? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19: 1275–1289. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-016-9745-2.
Rehman, S. (2012). Decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. The American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences Journal, 16(5): 29-45.
Rehman, S. & J. Dzionek-Kozłowska (2018). The Trolley Problem revisited: An exploratory study. Annales: Ethics in Economic Life, 21(3): 23–32. https://doi.org/10.18778/1899-2226.21.3.02
Savage, L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Simon, H.A. (1957). Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Simon, H.A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. In C.B. McGuire & R. Radner (eds.), Decisions and Organization: A Volume in Honor of Jacob Marschak (161–176). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.
Singer, P. (2005). Ethics and intuitions. The Journal of Ethics, 9: 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-005-3508-y
Steinbock, B. & A. Norcross (eds.) (1994). Killing and Letting Die (2nd Edition). New York: Fordham University Press.
Thomson, J.J. (1976). Killing, letting die, and the Trolley Problem. The Monist, 59(2): 204–217.
Thomson, J.J. (1985). The Trolley Problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94(6): 1395–1415.
Tversky, A. & D. Kahneman (1974), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157): 1124–1131.
Authors
Copyright (c) 2020 Sharaf Rehman, Joanna Dzionek-Kozłowsk
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This journal provides immediate and free open access to all its content and is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This means readers are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as proper attribution is given. This policy is consistent with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.