Cited by 101Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentEthics in Business and EducationPhilosophical Ethics and Theory

Human decision-making biases in the moral dilemmas of autonomous vehicles

Open access
Frank, Darius-Aurel, Chrysochou, Polymeros, Mitkidis, Panagiotis, Ariely, Dan·2019·Scientific Reports

Abstract

The development of artificial intelligence has led researchers to study the ethical principles that should guide machine behavior. The challenge in building machine morality based on people’s moral decisions, however, is accounting for the biases in human moral decision-making. In seven studies, this paper investigates how people’s personal perspectives and decision-making modes affect their decisions in the moral dilemmas faced by autonomous vehicles. Moreover, it determines the variations in people’s moral decisions that can be attributed to the situational factors of the dilemmas. The reported studies demonstrate that people’s moral decisions, regardless of the presented dilemma, are biased by their decision-making mode and personal perspective. Under intuitive moral decisions, participants shift more towards a deontological doctrine by sacrificing the passenger instead of the pedestrian. In addition, once the personal perspective is made salient participants preserve the lives of that perspective, i.e. the passenger shifts towards sacrificing the pedestrian, and vice versa. These biases in people’s moral decisions underline the social challenge in the design of a universal moral code for autonomous vehicles. We discuss the implications of our findings and provide directions for future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-019-49411-7

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People tend to avoid moral algorithms involving self-sacrifice.

    “Several investigations have delved into the specific perspectives of passengers, pedestrians, and observers in trolley dilemma, indicating people’s inclination to avoid moral algorithm involving self-sacrifice (Frank et al., 2019; Mayer et al., 2021).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frank, D.-A., Chrysochou, P., Mitkidis, P., & Ariely, D.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Frank, Darius-Aurel
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2019-09-11
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
13080-13080
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2972894832
Cited by
101
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7
FWCI
4.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Aarhus Universitet
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Keywords
autonomous vehicles, ethical dilemmas, ethical decision-making, decision bias, personal perspective, deontology, consequentialism
MeSH terms
Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Automobiles, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Morals

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review