Knowledge claim: Human behaviour can be influenced by an observer.
Real-life example: Hawthorne Studies – Hawthorne was considered a progressive place to work due to benefits workers received such as paid pension plans and sickness disability pay. An experiment was conducted there on the effects of illumination on worker efficiency. Output increased in general but was not affected by light as both workers working in light and in dim light had an increase in output. The study was ceased due to lack of results. However a similar idea was experimented on women making relays. These women were given rest breaks and different hours were tried. As a result, output increased by 30%. The observers studied workers producing more in less time.
TOK analysis: We must acknowledge that output increased wherever these tests were tried, and thus wherever workers were observed and studied. There is a knowledge issue presented here as the observers did not notice this with the Hawthorne studies. There was a connection found that simply did not exist. The conclusion that was ignored was that human behaviour (in this context, the output produced) changed drastically when these workers were observed. The observers influenced the workers behaviour and resulted in an increase in output. They were now in a more pressured environment where they could not slack in their work and thus were in general more efficient. To avoid this issue, we must consider the effects of the experimental process itself on the results and not just the factor(s) (independent variable) that is tested/changed in the experiment.
In both cases, four people die so the number of people in the car and on the street was not a factor that played a role in my decision, neither was the type of person, for example an athlete over just a normal woman. I chose the option on the right because, first of all, the pedestrians were walking when there a green light so they are abiding by the law and therefore were not in the wrong place. Secondly, for the passengers, it makes sense to me that the car would do what it could to avoid killing other humans by crashing into them.
Scenario 2
For this case, I chose the option on the right because firstly, the passengers were not abiding by the law, so they were in the wrong place. Secondly, the car was already going in that direction, it would not make sense to swerve towards a larger group of humans, who are in fact abiding by the law.
Scenario 3
These cases both had the same number of people, so I made my decision to choose the option on the left based upon which pedestrians were in the wrong place. I did not think about the types of people, such as their occupation or social class.
Scenario 4
For this scenario, I chose the option on the left because firstly, there was three people crossing rather than five, which was the other situation, and therefore less people would die.
Scenario 5
Although the woman was not abiding by the law, I would find it difficult to directly crash into her when I believe it would be an instinct to swerve away from any human contact. In both situations, one person dies, and although the passenger is not at fault, I think it would be better to crash into the barrier. Additionally, even though there is a regular woman and a large woman, this did not factor into my decision, and I believe that I would have made the same decision if the women were swapped positions. As a result, I chose the option on the left.
Scenario 6
I found this decision very difficult because I would find it challenging to crash into five animals. However, I believe that as a human, I would value human life over the lives of the animals. As a result, I chose the option on the left.
Scenario 7
For this situation, I chose the option on the right because as I mentioned before, I personally think it is instinct to swerve away from crashing into humans directly. The fact that the pedestrians had an older woman did not play a role in my decision, however after looking at my final results, it said that I had a preference towards the elderly, which is not something I agree on.
Scenario 8
My decision to choose the option on the right has the same explanation as the others. I did not realise until after that the passengers were solely men and the pedestrians were only women. My final results said that I had a preference towards women, which I guess makes sense since I am a girl myself. However, I am not sure that I agree with this because if the passengers were all women and the pedestrians were all men, I think I would have made the same decision.
Scenario 9
I chose the option on the left, solely based on the fact that the woman was not abiding by the law, and it would not make sense to me, if the car were to swerve and kill and man crossing the street at a green.
Scenario 10
Although I did mention before that I would value human life over animal life if I had to make the choice, I chose the option the right because again it would be instinct, if I saw something ahead of me on the street, to swerve into the barrier.
Scenario 11
For this scenario, my reasoning is the same as the previous one, but also because this option would save three people rather than one, and so I chose the option on the left. In this case, there is also a pregnant woman which I do think influenced my decision, as for me it would count as two lives. The fact that I also saved the criminal is not that much of a factor as although this person does not abide by certain laws, I do not believe that they would then deserve to die by being crashed into on the street.
Scenario 12
For this situation, I chose to swerve into the humans (option on the left), because firstly they are not abiding by the law. Secondly, the barrier is in the direct path of the car, and so I would swerve the car away from this threat.
Scenario 13
For this last scenario, I chose the option the left, because again I find that it would be more of an instinct to swerve away from the humans, despite the fact that they are not abiding by the law, by crossing the street on a red.
