CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyPhilosophical Ethics and Theory

Self-protective and self-sacrificing preferences of pedestrians and passengers in moral dilemmas involving autonomous vehicles

Open access
Mayer, Maike M., Bell, Raoul, Buchner, Axel·2021·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0261673PMC PMC8700044
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Upon the introduction of autonomous vehicles into daily traffic, it becomes increasingly likely that autonomous vehicles become involved in accident scenarios in which decisions have to be made about how to distribute harm among involved parties. In four experiments, participants made moral decisions from the perspective of a passenger, a pedestrian, or an observer. The results show that the preferred action of an autonomous vehicle strongly depends on perspective. Participants’ judgments reflect self-protective tendencies even when utilitarian motives clearly favor one of the available options. However, with an increasing number of lives at stake, utilitarian preferences increased. In a fifth experiment, we tested whether these results were tainted by social desirability but this was not the case. Overall, the results confirm that strong differences exist among passengers, pedestrians, and observers about the preferred course of action in critical incidents. It is therefore important that the actions of autonomous vehicles are not only oriented towards the needs of their passengers, but also take the interests of other road users into account. Even though utilitarian motives cannot fully reconcile the conflicting interests of passengers and pedestrians, there seem to be some moral preferences that a majority of the participants agree upon regardless of their perspective, including the utilitarian preference to save several other lives over one’s own.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0261673

Cites

59 of 59 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).”

    From Exploring moral algorithm preferences in autonomous vehicle dilemmas: an empirical study (2023) · cites this paper as Mayer et al., 2021

    The Introduction (page unavailable) reports reluctance to buy utilitarian autonomous vehicles and describes a self-protective bias, supporting an inclination to avoid self-sacrificing programming. But the Experiment 3 Discussion and General discussion (pages unavailable) report that a majority preferred self-sacrifice to save several others. The claim overstates avoidance as a general preference. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A majority of participants indicated reluctance to purchase an AV programmed with a utilitarian moral algorithm.

    “Specifically, participants may agree, in principle, that it would be morally acceptable to sacrifice one passenger (including themselves) to save five passengers, a majority of participants indicated reluctance to purchase an AV programmed with a utilitarian moral algorithm (Bonnefon et al., 2016; Mayer et al., 2021).”

    From Exploring moral algorithm preferences in autonomous vehicle dilemmas: an empirical study (2023) · cites this paper as Mayer et al., 2021

    The Introduction reports that Bonnefon et al.’s participants were unwilling to buy utilitarian autonomous vehicles for themselves despite judging that programming morally preferable. It does not say that a majority were reluctant to buy one. Mayer et al.’s majority findings in the General discussion concern choices in moral dilemmas, not purchasing. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [12]Lin P. Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In: Maurer M, Gerdes JC, Lenz B, Winner H, editors. Autonomous driving. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2016. pp. 69– 85.
  2. [50]Karrer K, Glaser C, Clemens C, Bruder C. Technikaffinität erfassen–Der Fragebogen TA-EG In: Lichtenstein A, Stößel C, Clemens C, editors. Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt technischer Systemes. 8. Berliner Werkstatt Mensch-Maschine-Systeme (Vol. 29). Düsseldorf: VDI Verlag GmbH; 2009. pp. 196– 201. German.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mayer, M. M., Bell, R., & Buchner, A.
Affiliations
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Mayer, Maike M.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2021-12-23
Volume
16
Issue
12
Pages
e0261673
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0261673
PMC
PMC8700044
OpenAlex
W4200520994
Cited by
36
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 2
FWCI
3.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Keywords
autonomous vehicles, ethical dilemmas, utilitarianism, pedestrian perspective, passenger perspective, observer perspective, social desirability bias, accident scenarios, critical incidents
MeSH terms
Accidents, Traffic, Pedestrians, Autonomous Vehicles, Adolescent, Adult, Altruism, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Ethical Theory

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