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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-49411-7PMC PMC6739396
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

Overview

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

Figures

Figure 1 Moral decision task used in Study 1. Note: Own work. Image assets adapted from the Moral Machine (http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) by Scalable Cooperation and MIT Media Lab [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)].
Figure 1 Moral decision task used in Study 1. Note: Own work. Image assets adapted from the Moral Machine (http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) by Scalable Cooperation and MIT Media Lab [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Moral decision to sacrifice the pedestrian by individual’s perspective and decision-making mode in Study 1. Caption: The dashed line marks the point at which lives of passenger(s) are valued equally to those of pedestrian(s).
Figure 2 Moral decision to sacrifice the pedestrian by individual’s perspective and decision-making mode in Study 1. Caption: The dashed line marks the point at which lives of passenger(s) are valued equally to those of pedestrian(s).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 The default path of the vehicle in Studies 1 and 2. Note: Own work. Image assets adapted from the Moral Machine (http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) by Scalable Cooperation and MIT Media Lab [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)].
Figure 3 The default path of the vehicle in Studies 1 and 2. Note: Own work. Image assets adapted from the Moral Machine (http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) by Scalable Cooperation and MIT Media Lab [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 The default path of the vehicle in Studies 3 and 4. Note: Own work. Image assets adapted from the Moral Machine (http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) by Scalable Cooperation and MIT Media Lab [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)].
Figure 4 The default path of the vehicle in Studies 3 and 4. Note: Own work. Image assets adapted from the Moral Machine (http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) by Scalable Cooperation and MIT Media Lab [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 The default path of the vehicle for the front- and back-seat conditions in Study 5. Note: Own work. Image assets adapted from the Moral Machine (http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) by Scalable Cooperation and MIT Media Lab [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)].
Figure 5 The default path of the vehicle for the front- and back-seat conditions in Study 5. Note: Own work. Image assets adapted from the Moral Machine (http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) by Scalable Cooperation and MIT Media Lab [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 The default path of the vehicle for the norm violation conditions in Study 6. Note: Own work. Image assets adapted from the Moral Machine (http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) by Scalable Cooperation and MIT Media Lab [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)].
Figure 6 The default path of the vehicle for the norm violation conditions in Study 6. Note: Own work. Image assets adapted from the Moral Machine (http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) by Scalable Cooperation and MIT Media Lab [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Moral decision to sacrifice the pedestrian by individual’s perspective and decision-making mode in Study 7. Note: The dashed line marks the point at which lives of passenger(s) are valued equally to those of pedestrian(s).
Figure 7 Moral decision to sacrifice the pedestrian by individual’s perspective and decision-making mode in Study 7. Note: The dashed line marks the point at which lives of passenger(s) are valued equally to those of pedestrian(s).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Main effects estimates on moral decision to sacrifice the pedestrian(s) for Studies 1–6. Note: Effect estimates are given by the squares for single-study estimates and the horizontal bars for SPM estimates; 50% and 95% intervals are given by the thick and thin lines, respectively. The average sample size per condition in each study is given by the size of the squares. The vertical dotted lines indicate the null-effect.
Figure 8 Main effects estimates on moral decision to sacrifice the pedestrian(s) for Studies 1–6. Note: Effect estimates are given by the squares for single-study estimates and the horizontal bars for SPM estimates; 50% and 95% intervals are given by the thick and thin lines, respectively. The average sample size per condition in each study is given by the size of the squares. The vertical dotted lines indicate the null-effect.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Simple effects estimates for moral decision to sacrifice the pedestrian for Studies 1–6. Note: Effect estimates are given by the squares for single-study estimates and the horizontal bars for SPM estimates; 50% and 95% intervals are given by the thick and thin lines, respectively. The average sample size per condition in each study is given by the size of the squares. The vertical dotted lines indicate the null-effect.
Figure 9 Simple effects estimates for moral decision to sacrifice the pedestrian for Studies 1–6. Note: Effect estimates are given by the squares for single-study estimates and the horizontal bars for SPM estimates; 50% and 95% intervals are given by the thick and thin lines, respectively. The average sample size per condition in each study is given by the size of the squares. The vertical dotted lines indicate the null-effect.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Simon, H. A. Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization 1, 161–176 (1972).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 101

Related

See all

Metadata

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
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-09-11
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
13080-13080
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-019-49411-7
PMC
PMC6739396
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
Licence
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 › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource 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