How does the method change what we measure? Comparing virtual reality and text-based surveys for the assessment of moral decisions in traffic dilemmas

Autoři: Leon René Sütfeld aff001;  Benedikt V. Ehinger aff001;  Peter König aff001;  Gordon Pipa aff001
Působiště autorů: Institute of Cognitive Science, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223108


The question of how self-driving cars should behave in dilemma situations has recently attracted a lot of attention in science, media and society. A growing number of publications amass insight into the factors underlying the choices we make in such situations, often using forced-choice paradigms closely linked to the trolley dilemma. The methodology used to address these questions, however, varies widely between studies, ranging from fully immersive virtual reality settings to completely text-based surveys. In this paper we compare virtual reality and text-based assessments, analyzing the effect that different factors in the methodology have on decisions and emotional response of participants. We present two studies, comparing a total of six different conditions varying across three dimensions: The level of abstraction, the use of virtual reality, and time-constraints. Our results show that the moral decisions made in this context are not strongly influenced by the assessment, and the compared methods ultimately appear to measure very similar constructs. Furthermore, we add to the pool of evidence on the underlying factors of moral judgment in traffic dilemmas, both in terms of general preferences, i.e., features of the particular situation and potential victims, as well as in terms of individual differences between participants, such as their age and gender.

Klíčová slova:

Behavior – Cognition – Decision making – Elderly – High pressure – Regulations – Video games – Virtual reality


1. Birnbacher D, Birnbacher W. Automatisiertes Fahren. Ethische Fragen an der Schnittstelle von Technik und Gesellschaft. Information Philosophie. 2016;4:8–15.

2. Johnsen A, Strand N, Andersson J, Patten C, Kraetsch C, Takman J. D2.1 Literature review on the acceptance and road safety, ethical, legal, social and economic implications of automated vehicles. 2017;.

3. Holstein T, Dodig-Crnkovic G, Pelliccione P. Ethical and Social Aspects of Self-Driving Cars. arXiv preprint arXiv:180204103. 2018;.

4. Bonnefon JF, Shariff A, Rahwan I. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science. 2016;352(6293):1573–1576. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2654 27339987

5. Sütfeld LR, Gast R, König P, Pipa G. Using virtual reality to assess ethical decisions in road traffic scenarios: applicability of value-of-life-based models and influences of time pressure. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience. 2017;11:122. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00122 28725188

6. Faulhaber AK, Dittmer A, Blind F, Wächter MA, Timm S, Sütfeld LR, et al. Human decisions in moral dilemmas are largely described by utilitarianism: Virtual car driving study provides guidelines for autonomous driving vehicles. Science and engineering ethics. 2018; p. 1–20.

7. Bergmann LT, Schlicht L, Meixner C, König P, Pipa G, Boshammer S, et al. Autonomous Vehicles Require Socio-Political Acceptance—An Empirical and Philosophical Perspective on the Problem of Moral Decision Making. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience. 2018;12:31. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00031 29541023

8. Frison AK, Wintersberger P, Riener A. First Person Trolley Problem: Evaluation of Drivers’ Ethical Decisions in a Driving Simulator. In: Adjunct proceedings of the 8th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. ACM; 2016. p. 117–122.

9. Li J, Zhao X, Cho MJ, Ju W, Malle BF. From trolley to autonomous vehicle: Perceptions of responsibility and moral norms in traffic accidents with self-driving cars. SAE Technical Paper; 2016.

10. Awad E, Dsouza S, Kim R, Schulz J, Henrich J, Shariff A, et al. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature. 2018; p. 1.

11. Thomson JJ. The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal. 1985;94(6):1395–1415. doi: 10.2307/796133

12. Sütfeld LR, Gast R, König P, Pipa G. Response: Commentary: Using Virtual Reality to Assess Ethical Decisions in Road Traffic Scenarios: Applicability of Value-of-Life-Based Models and Influences of Time Pressure. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience. 2018;12:128. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00128 29997485

13. Lütge C. The German Ethics Code for Automated and Connected Driving. Philosophy & Technology. 2017;.

14. Johansson-Stenman O, Martinsson P. Are some lives more valuable? An ethical preferences approach. Journal of health economics. 2008;27(3):739–752. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.10.001 18164772

15. Greene JD, Sommerville RB, Nystrom LE, Darley JM, Cohen JD. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science. 2001;293(5537):2105–2108. doi: 10.1126/science.1062872 11557895

16. Valdesolo P, DeSteno D. Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological science. 2006;17(6):476–477. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01731.x 16771796

17. Tassy S, Oullier O, Mancini J, Wicker B. Discrepancies between judgment and choice of action in moral dilemmas. Frontiers in psychology. 2013;4:250. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00250 23720645

18. Patil I, Cogoni C, Zangrando N, Chittaro L, Silani G. Affective basis of judgment-behavior discrepancy in virtual experiences of moral dilemmas. Social neuroscience. 2014;9(1):94–107. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2013.870091 24359489

19. Francis KB, Howard C, Howard IS, Gummerum M, Ganis G, Anderson G, et al. Virtual Morality: Transitioning from Moral Judgment to Moral Action? PloS one. 2016;11(10):e0164374. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164374 27723826

20. Stöber J. The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2001;17(3):222. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.222

21. Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language. 2013;68(3):255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001

22. Bradley RA, Terry ME. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika. 1952;39(3/4):324–345. doi: 10.2307/2334029

23. Bürkner PC. brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software. 2017;80(1):1–28.

24. Bürkner PC. Advanced Bayesian Multilevel Modeling with the R Package brms. The R Journal. 2018;10(1):395–411. doi: 10.32614/RJ-2018-017

25. Gawronski B, Armstrong J, Conway P, Friesdorf R, Hütter M. Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2017;113(3):343. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000086 28816493

26. Suter RS, Hertwig R. Time and moral judgment. Cognition. 2011;119(3):454–458. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.018 21354557

27. Tinghög G, Andersson D, Bonn C, Johannesson M, Kirchler M, Koppel L, et al. Intuition and moral decision-making–the effect of time pressure and cognitive load on moral judgment and altruistic behavior. PloS one. 2016;11(10):e0164012. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164012 27783704

28. Bago B, De Neys W. The intuitive greater good: Testing the corrective dual process model of moral cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2018;.

29. Greene JD, Nystrom LE, Engell AD, Darley JM, Cohen JD. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron. 2004;44(2):389–400. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 15473975

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10