Korean Journal of Psychology : General
[ Article ]
The Korean Journal of Psychology: General - Vol. 40, No. 1, pp.105-129
ISSN: 1229-067X (Print)
Print publication date 25 Mar 2021
Received 25 Jan 2021 Accepted 19 Mar 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2021.

자율주행 자동차 사고 상황에 대한 한국인의 윤리적 판단

이혜원1) ; 정은경
1)연세대학교 심리학과 석박사통합과정생 jesshyewon@gmail.com
Koreans’ Ethical Judgment on the Situation Characteristics of AVs(Autonomous Vehicles) Accidents
Hyewon Lee1) ; Eun Kyoung Chung
1)Department of Psychology, Yonsei University
Department of Psychology, Kangwon National University

Correspondence to: 정은경, 강원대학교 심리학과 부교수, 강원도 춘천시 강원대학길 1 강원대학교 사회과학관, E-mail: ekchung@kangwon.ac.kr


본 연구는 200여 국가의 사람들을 대상으로 자율주행자동차의 사고 상황에 대한 도덕적 기준을 살펴본 선행연구를 바탕으로 기존 연구에서 타 문화권과 다른 동양 문화권의 특성으로 제시된 다수와 젊은 연령에 대한 상대적으로 낮은 선호가 실제로 한국인에게서 나타나는지, 그리고 자율주행자동차관련 윤리적 판단이 운전자와 관찰자라는 관점에 따라 달라지는지를 알아보고자 하였다. 연구 1에서는 인원, 연령 조건에 따른 한국인의 윤리적 판단을 확인하고 이에 동반되는 선택의 어려움 정도를 살펴보았다. 연구 2에서는 관찰자와 운전자라는 관점 차이에 따라 윤리적 판단, 선택의 어려움, 사고 책임평가가 달라지는 지를 알아보았다. 연구 1의 결과, 다수와 젊은 연령에 대한 선호가 강하게 나타났으며 인원과 연령을 모두 고려하였을 때는 예외적 경우를 제외하고는 전반적으로 연령기준보다는 인원수 기준을 우선적으로 적용하여 판단하는 성향이 강했다. 연구 2에서는 관점에 따른 윤리적 판단에 유의한 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 관찰자집단이 운전자집단보다 보행자를 우선하여 살리려는 성향이 유의하게 높았으며, 운전자집단이 의사결정에 대한 주관적 어려움을 유의하게 높게 보고했다. 사고의 책임 주체에 대해서는 두 집단 모두 자동차 회사, 운전자, 보행자 순으로 책임이 있다고 판단하는 것으로 나타났다. 연구결과에 대한 함의점과 제한점이 논의되었다.


We have conducted two studies to confirm Koreans’ perceptions of ethical judgment of Autonomous Vehicles(AVs). Based on prior studies that examined people’s ethical standards on the accident situation of AVs, we wanted to find out whether the low support for utilitarian decision of AVs, and for sparing young lives, which were presented as characteristics of the Eastern culture in prior research were also seen in Korean samples (Study 1), and whether the ethical judgment on AVs depends on the perspectives: driver and observer (Study 2). In Study 1, we examined the ethical judgment of Koreans based on the two conditions number of people and age conditions and verified the subjective difficulties of the accompanying choices. In Study 2, we ascertained whether ethical judgment, subjective difficulties in choice, and assessment of accident responsibility vary depending on the difference in perspective between observers and drivers. Results in Study 1 provided that the participants made a decision to save more lives and young lives. Considering both the number of people and the age, overall, the tendency to judge by applying the number of people criteria preferentially rather than the age standard was confirmed. Study 2 showed significant differences in ethical judgments based on perspectives. Pedestrian priority was significantly higher shown in the observers group who had nothing to do with the accidents. Drivers group reported more subjective difficulties in making decisions. When asked who was responsible for the accidents, participants answered that the manufacturer was the most responsible regardless of the point of view, followed by the driver. On the other hand, they answered that pedestrians were least responsible.


Autonomous Vehicles, ethical judgment, driver‘s perspective, observer‘s perspective, liability for an accident


자율주행자동차, 윤리적 판단, 운전자 관점, 관찰자 관점, 사고 책임


이 논문은 2019년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2019S1A5A8037785).


  • Anderson, J. M., Nidhi, K., Stanley, K. D., Sorensen, P., Samaras, C., & Oluwatola, O. A. (2014). Autonomous vehicle technology: A guide for policymakers. Rand Corporation.
  • Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563(7729), 59-64. [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6]
  • Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 70(1), 1-16. [https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2690]
  • Bazilinskyy, P., Kyriakidis, M., & de Winter, J. (2015). An international crowdsourcing study into people’s statements on fully automated driving. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2534-2542. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.540]
  • Beiker, S. A. (2012). Legal aspects of autonomous driving. Santa Clara Law Review, 52, 1145.
  • Bonnefon, J. F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293), 1573-1576. [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2654]
  • Byun, S. Y. (2017). An Approach to Ethical Guidelines of Autonomous Vehicle, The Korean Association of Ethics 1(112), 199-216. [https://doi.org/10.15801/je.1.112.201703.199]
  • Byun, S. Y., Hwang, K. Y., Im, I. J. (2018). A Study on the Korean Ethical Guideline of Autonomous Vehicles. Journal of Ethics, 1 (132), 203-239. [https://doi.org/10.15801/je.1.132.201812.203]
  • Cho, S.A, Kim, K. (2020). Socio-economic Factors Affecting Social Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles in Korea. Journal of Transport Research, 27(3), 51-64.
  • Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167-181. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003]
  • Fiske, A. P., & Tetlock, P. E. (1997). Taboo trade‐offs: reactions to transactions that transgress the spheres of justice. Political psychology, 18(2), 255-297. [https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00058]
  • Goodall, N. J. (2014). Machine ethics and automated vehicles. In Road vehicle automation (pp. 93-102). Springer, Cham. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05990-7_9]
  • Greene, J. D. (2016). Our driverless dilemma. Science, 352(6293), 1514-1515. [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf9534]
  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological review, 108(4), 814. [https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.108.4.814]
  • Hwang, K. Y., Song, J.I., Kang, M.H, & Im, I. J. (2020). An Importance Analysis of The Korean Ethical Guideline for Automated Vehicle Using AHP Method. The Journal of The Korea Institute of Intelligent Transport Systems, 19(1), 107-120. [https://doi.org/10.12815/kits.2020.19.1.107]
  • Im, I. J, Kim, K. Y, Lee, J. Y, & Hwang, K. Y. (2017). Analyzing Traffic Impacts of the Utilitarian Robotic Autonomous Vehicle. The Journal of The Korea Institute of Intelligent Transport Systems, 16(2), 55-72. [https://doi.org/10.12815/kits.2017.16.2.55]
  • Im, I. J, Song, J. I, Hwang, K. Y. (2019). An analysis of the Social Perception of Ethical Guideline for Automated Vehicles. Journal of Transport Research, 26(1), 47-62. [https://doi.org/10.34143/jtr.2019.26.1.47]
  • UCI(KEPA): I410-ECN-0101-2019-350-000570141
  • Jeong, M. H, Go, S. Y. (2020). The Direction of the Legal System for Everyday use of Autonomous Vehicles. Inha Law Review: The Institute of Legal Studies Inha University, 23(2), 105-128. [https://doi.org/10.22789/IHLR.2020.]
  • Kang, M. H, Im, I. J, Song, J. In, & Hwang, K. Y. (2019). Analyzing Traffic Impacts of Automated Vehicles on Expressway Weaving Sections: A Case Study using Seoul-Singal Ramp Area. Journal of Transport Research, 26(4), 33-47. [https://doi.org/10.34143/jtr.2019.26.4.33]
  • Kaan, J. (2017). User Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management (Tpm), Delft University of Technology, Nederland.
  • Karnouskos, S. (2018). Self-driving car acceptance and the role of ethics. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. [https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2018.2877307]
  • Kelkel, R. (2015). Predicting consumers’ intention to purchase fully autonomous driving systems: which factors drive acceptance? Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Portugal.
  • Kim, M. H, Park, H. J. (2020). A Study on the Ethical Analysis and Legal Maintenance of Autonomous Vehicles. Study on the American Constitution, 31(1), 1-36.
  • UCI(KEPA): I410-ECN-0101-2020-362-000587076
  • Kim, H. Y., & Sung, D. K. (2018). Factors Influencing on Purchase Intention for an Autonomous Driving Car - Focusing on Extended TAM - Journal of the Korea contents association, 18(3), 81–100.
  • Kim, S. R.. (2020). Ethical and legal difficulties and solutions that need to be solved before autonomous vehicles are commercialized-Focused on ethical guidelines and moral machine experiments. IT & Law Review, 21, 171-214. [https://doi.org/10.37877/itnlaw.2020.08.21.6]
  • Ko, I. S. (2019). How to settle the normative issues concerning automated driving. Journal of the New Korean Philosophical Association, 96, 81-107. [https://doi.org/10.20433/jnkpa.2019.04.96.81]
  • Lee, Y. J., & Ahn, H. (2020). A Study on the Users’ Perception of Autonomous Vehicles using Q Methodology. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 20(5), 153-170.
  • Lee, G. B, Rhim, J. M, Kang, N. W, Lee, J. H. (2020). Driver Moral Codes in Autonomous Vehicles Dilemma Scenarios from Human Driver’s Perspective. Korea Institute of Design Research Society, 5(1): 125-135. [https://doi.org/10.46248/kidrs.2020.1.125]
  • Li, J., Zhao, X., Cho, M. J., Ju, W., & Malle, B. F. (2016). From trolley to autonomous vehicle: Perceptions of responsibility and moral norms in traffic accidents with self-driving cars (No. 2016-01-0164). SAE Technical Paper. [https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-0164]
  • NHTSA (2017). USDOT Releases 2016 Fatal Traffic Crash Data. https://www.nhtsa.gov
  • Park, E. G.. (2019). A Study on the Improvement of Legal-System Based on the Survey of Acceptance of Self-Driving-Car. Law Review, 19(3), 153-181.
  • Park, J. E, Yoo, Y. J, Hong, S. H, Lee, S. H, Choi, J. H. (2019). A Proposal of Travel Service to Improve the Reliability of Self-driving Cars - Focused on Service Design Methodology - . Journal of Digital Contents Society, 20(3), 559-567. [https://doi.org/10.9728/dcs.2019.20.3.559]
  • Ritov, Ilana; Baron, Jonathan (February 1992). “Status-quo and omission biases”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5 (1). [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208786]
  • Rosenzweig, J., & Bartl, M. (2015). A review and analysis of literature on autonomous driving. E-Journal Making-of Innovation, 1-57.
  • SAE, Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles(J3016), 2016.9.
  • Schoettle, B., & Sivak, M. (2014). A survey of public opinion about autonomous and self-driving vehicles in the US, the UK, and Australia. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute. [https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCVE.2014.7297637]
  • Sung, K. Y, Oh, J. T, & Kim, H. (2020). A Study on the Acceptance Factor Analysis of Autonomous Vehicles: Focused on the Structural Equation Model. The Journal of The Korea Institute of Intelligent Transport Systems, 19(1), 17-31. [https://doi.org/10.12815/kits.2020.19.1.17]
  • The Road Traffic Authority.(2018). 2017 Traffic Accident Statistics. (2018 edition). http://taas.koroad.or.kr
  • Thornton, S. M., Pan, S., Erlien, S. M., & Gerdes, J. C. (2016). Incorporating ethical considerations into automated vehicle control. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 18(6), 1429-1439. [https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2016.2609339]
  • Unavoidable trends, the advent and safety of self-driving cars. (2018. 11. 23.). ETRI Webzine. vol.119
  • Yi, S. D., & Jung, C. Y. (2017). Building an ethical autonomous vehicle: Issues, challenges and prospects. IT & Law Review, 15, 281-325. [https://doi.org/10.37877/itnlaw.2017.08.15.9]
  • Zhou, F., Yang, X. J., & Zhang, X. (2020). Takeover transition in autonomous vehicles: a YouTube study. International Journal of Human –Computer Interaction, 36(3), 295-306. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1634317]