Trolley dilemma in the sky: Context matters when civilians and cadets make remotely piloted aircraft decisions

Abstract

Crews operating remotely piloted aircrafts (RPAs) in military operations may be among the few that truly experience tragic dilemmas similar to the famous Trolley Problem. In order to analyze decision-making and emotional conflict of RPA operators within Trolley-Problem-like dilemma situations, we created an RPA simulation that varied mission contexts (firefighter, military and surveillance as a control condition) and the social “value” of a potential victim. We found that participants (Air Force cadets and civilian students) were less likely to make the common utilitarian choice (sacrificing one to save five), when the value of the one increased, especially in the military context. However, in the firefighter context, this decision pattern was much less pronounced. The results demonstrate behavioral and justification differences when people are more invested in a particular context despite ostensibly similar dilemmas.

Remote Warfare with Intimate Consequences: Psychological Stress in Service Member and Veteran Remotely-Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Personnel

“…With regard to PTSD related to experiences to damage, casualties, and related losses 8 . In short, this degree of involvement with targets can create a sense of "intimacy" not seen with more conventional "boots on the ground" warfare 41 . It differs from conventional warfare that may involve eye contact or physical contact with the enemy prior to weapons discharge as it is a one-sided intimacy.…”

Contextualizing sacrificial dilemmas within Covid-19 for the study of moral judgment

“…As many researchers have pointed out, contextualizing the action (e.g., killing or letting die in sacrificial dilemmas) can help to study moral responses as they are made in real life (e.g., [26][27][28]. In Watkins and Laham's [29] research, participants responded to trolley problem scenarios in two different contexts (i.e., in a war context and a peace context).…”

“…The findings demonstrated that the context changes judgment on sacrificial dilemmas: killing one person to save five was judged more acceptable in a war context than in a peace context. Following Watkins and Laham’s [ 29 ] research, Christen et al [ 26 ] wanted to understand moral judgment in more real-life trolley problem scenarios involving military, firefighting, and surveillance missions. In their study, participants made decisions about remotely piloted aircraft that resulted in sacrificial outcomes.…”