More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Would you do it?: Enacting Moral Dilemmas in Virtual Reality for Understanding Ethical Decision-Making

Authors:

Evangelos Niforatos,

Athanasios Vourvopoulos,

Fotis LiarokapisAuthors Info & Claims

CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Pages 1 - 12

https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376788

Published: 23 April 2020 Publication History

Abstract

A moral dilemma is a decision-making paradox without unambiguously acceptable or preferable options. This paper investigates if and how the virtual enactment of two renowned moral dilemmas---the Trolley and the Mad Bomber---influence decision-making when compared with mentally visualizing such situations. We conducted two user studies with two gender-balanced samples of 60 participants in total that compared between paper-based and virtual-reality (VR) conditions, while simulating 5 distinct scenarios for the Trolley dilemma, and 4 storyline scenarios for the Mad Bomber's dilemma. Our findings suggest that the VR enactment of moral dilemmas further fosters utilitarian decision-making, while it amplifies biases such as sparing juveniles and seeking retribution. Ultimately, we theorize that the VR enactment of renowned moral dilemmas can yield ecologically-valid data for training future Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems on ethical decision-making, and we elicit early design principles for the training of such systems.

Supplementary Material

ZIP File (pn8804aux.zip)

Screenshots featuring the character models from the Virtual Reality (VR) enactment of the Trolley and Mad Bomber dilemmas in JPEG format.

Download
4.84 MB

MP4 File (pn8804vf.mp4)

Supplemental video

Download
10.85 KB

References

[1]

Nikolaos Aletras, Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, Daniel Preotiuc-Pietro, and Vasileios Lampos. 2016. Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A natural language processing perspective. Peer J Computer Science 2 (2016), e93. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93

[2]

Julia Annas. 1992. Ancient ethics and modern morality. Philosophical Perspectives 6 (1992), 119--136.

[3]

Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature 563, 7729 (2018), 59.

[4]

Jeremy Bailenson. 2018. Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, how it Works, and what it Can Do. WW Norton & Company.

[5]

Reuben Binns, Max Van Kleek, Michael Veale, Ulrik Lyngs, Jun Zhao, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2018. 'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage': Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 377.

Digital Library

[6]

Derek C Bok. 1976. Can ethics be taught? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 8, 9 (1976), 26--30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1976.10568973

[7]

Rich Caruana and Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil. 2006. An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning. ACM, 161--168.

Digital Library

[8]

Anne Colby and Lawrence Kohlberg. 2011. The measurement of moral judgment. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press.

[9]

Keith E Davis and Edward E Jones. 1960. Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61, 3 (1960), 402. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044214

[10]

Neal Desai, Andre Pineda, Majken Runquist, Mark Andrew Fusunyan, Katy Glenn, Gabrielle Kathryn Gould, Michelle Rachel Katz, Henry Lichtblau, Maggie Jean Morgan, Sophia Wen, and others. 2010. Torture at times: Waterboarding in the media. (2010). https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4420886

[11]

Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter. 2000. Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of economic perspectives 14, 3 (2000), 159--181.

[12]

Philippa Foot. 1967. The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Oxford Review 5 (1967), 5--15. https://philpapers.org/rec/FOOTPO-2

[13]

Kathryn B. Francis, Charles Howard, Ian S. Howard, Michaela Gummerum, Giorgio Ganis, Grace Anderson, and Sylvia Terbeck. 2016. Virtual Morality: Transitioning from Moral Judgment to Moral Action? PLOS ONE 11, 10 (Oct. 2016), e0164374.

[14]

Dorothea Frede. 2017. Plato's Ethics: An Overview. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2017 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/plato-ethics/

[15]

Samuel Freeman. 1994. Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of Right. Philosophy & Public Affairs 23, 4 (Oct. 1994), 313--349.

[16]

M Fumagalli, Roberta Ferrucci, F Mameli, Sara Marceglia, Simona Mrakic-Sposta, Stefano Zago, Claudio Lucchiari, D Consonni, F Nordio, G Pravettoni, and others. 2010. Gender-related differences in moral judgments. Cognitive processing 11, 3 (2010), 219--226.

[17]

Victor Grassian. 1981. Moral reasoning: Ethical theory and some contemporary moral problems. Prentice-Hall Wilmington California.

[18]

Kurt Gray and Chelsea Schein. 2012. Two Minds Vs. Two Philosophies: Mind Perception Defines Morality and Dissolves the Debate Between Deontology and Utilitarianism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 3, 3 (Sept. 2012), 405--423.

[19]

Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In Advances in Psychology, Peter A. Hancock and Najmedin Meshkati (Ed.). Human Mental Workload, Vol. 52. North-Holland, 139--183. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166411508623869

[20]

Roslin V Hauck, H Atabakhsb, Pichai Ongvasith, Harsh Gupta, and Hsinchun Chen. 2002. Using Coplink to analyze criminal-justice data. Computer 35, 3 (2002), 30--37.

Digital Library

[21]

Patricia M King and Matthew J Mayhew. 2002. Moral judgement development in higher education: Insights from the Defining Issues Test. Journal of moral education 31, 3 (2002), 247--270. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022000008106

[22]

Judith Lichtenberg. 2001. The ethics of retaliation. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 21, 4 (2001), 4--8. http://ojs2.gmu.edu/PPPQ/article/view/366

[23]

Patrick Lin. 2015. Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In Autonomes fahren. Springer, 69--85.

[24]

Caitlin Lustig, Katie Pine, Bonnie Nardi, Lilly Irani, Min Kyung Lee, Dawn Nafus, and Christian Sandvig. 2016. Algorithmic authority: the ethics, politics, and economics of algorithms that interpret, decide, and manage. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1057--1062.

Digital Library

[25]

Terrance McConnell. 2002. Moral Dilemmas. (April 2002). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/ entries/moral-dilemmas/

[26]

Lee Kwan Min and Jung Younbo. 2005. Evolutionary nature of virtual experience. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology 3 (2005), 159--178. https://akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1556/JCEP.3.2005.2.4

[27]

Alexander G Mirnig and Alexander Meschtscherjakov. 2019. Trolled by the Trolley Problem: On What Matters for Ethical Decision Making in Automated Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 509.

Digital Library

[28]

United Nations. 1985. Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp.html

[29]

C. David Navarrete, Melissa M. McDonald, Michael L. Mott, and Benjamin Asher. 2012. Virtual morality: Emotion and action in a simulated three-dimensional ?trolley problem". Emotion 12, 2 (2012), 364--370.

[30]

Indrajeet Patil, Carlotta Cogoni, Nicola Zangrando, Luca Chittaro, and Giorgia Silani. 2014. Affective basis of judgment-behavior discrepancy in virtual experiences of moral dilemmas. Social Neuroscience 9, 1 (Feb. 2014), 94--107.

[31]

Hernán Reyes. 2007. The worst scars are in the mind: psychological torture. International Review of the Red Cross 89, 867 (2007), 591--617. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383107001300

[32]

Barbara O Rothbaum, Larry F Hodges, David Ready, Ken Graap, and Renato D Alarcon. 2001. Virtual reality exposure therapy for Vietnam veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. The Journal of clinical psychiatry (2001). https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.v62n0808

[33]

Aitor Rovira, David Swapp, Bernhard Spanlang, and Mel Slater. 2009. The use of virtual reality in the study of people's responses to violent incidents. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 3 (2009). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802544/

[34]

Neal E Seymour, Anthony G Gallagher, Sanziana A Roman, Michael K O'brien, Vipin K Bansal, Dana K Andersen, and Richard M Satava. 2002. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Annals of surgery 236, 4 (2002), 458.

[35]

Alexander Skulmowski, Andreas Bunge, Kai Kaspar, and Gordon Pipa. 2014. Forced-choice decision-making in modified trolley dilemma situations: a virtual reality and eye tracking study. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 8 (2014), 426.

[36]

Mel Slater and Sylvia Wilbur. 1997. A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE): Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 6 (1997), 603--616. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.6.603

Digital Library

[37]

Stephen J Thoma. 1986. Estimating gender differences in the comprehension and preference of moral issues. Developmental review 6, 2 (1986), 165--180. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273--2297(86)90010--9

[38]

Judith Jarvis Thomson. 1984. The Trolley Problem Comment. Yale Law Journal 94 (1984), 1395--1415. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ylr94&i=1415

[39]

John Torous, Maria K Wolters, Greg Wadley, and Rafael A Calvo. 2019. 4 th Symposium on Computing and Mental Health: Designing Ethical eMental Health Services. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Sym05.

Digital Library

[40]

Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 440.

Digital Library

[41]

Allison Woodruff, Sarah E Fox, Steven Rousso-Schindler, and Jeffrey Warshaw. 2018. A qualitative exploration of perceptions of algorithmic fairness. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 656.

Digital Library

Cited By

Cohen MKhavkin MMovsowitz Davidow DToch E(2024)ChatGPT in the public eye: Ethical principles and generative concerns in social media discussionsNew Media & Society10.1177/14614448241279034Online publication date: 21-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241279034
Baldry MHappa JSteed ASmith SGlencross M(2024)From Embodied Abuse to Mass Disruption: Generative, Inter-Reality Threats in Social, Mixed-Reality PlatformsDigital Threats: Research and Practice10.1145/36960155:4(1-36)Online publication date: 17-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3696015
Yin MXiao R(2024)How We See Changes How We Feel: Investigating the Effect of Visual Point-of-View on Decision-Making in VR EnvironmentsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869338:CSCW2(1-27)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686933
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Would you do it?: Enacting Moral Dilemmas in Virtual Reality for Understanding Ethical Decision-Making
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Computer graphics
    1. Graphics systems and interfaces
      1. Virtual reality
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. HCI design and evaluation methods
      1. User studies

Recommendations

Capable but Amoral? Comparing AI and Human Expert Collaboration in Ethical Decision Making
CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

While artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied for decision-making processes, ethical decisions pose challenges for AI applications. Given that humans cannot always agree on the right thing to do, how would ethical decision-making by AI ...
Moral intensity and ethical decision-making: a contextual extension

This paper explores the role of an individual's perception of situation-specific issues on decision-making in ethical situations. It does so by examining the influence of moral intensity on a person's perceptions of an ethical problem, and subsequent ...
Exploring the human factors in moral dilemmas of autonomous vehicles
Abstract
Given the widespread popularity of autonomous vehicles (AVs), researchers have been exploring the ethical implications of AVs. Researchers believe that empirical experiments can provide insights into human characterization of ethically sound ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 2020

10688 pages

ISBN:9781450367080

DOI:10.1145/3313831

General Chairs:
Regina Bernhaupt
Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
,
Florian 'Floyd' Mueller
Monash University, Australia
,
David Verweij
Newcastle University, UK
,
Josh Andres
RMIT, Australia
,
Program Chairs:
Joanna McGrenere
University of British Columbia, Canada
,
Andy Cockburn
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
,
Ignacio Avellino
University of Maryland Baltimore County, USA
,
Alix Goguey
Grenoble Alpes University, France
,
Pernille Bjørn
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
,
Shengdong (Shen) Zhao
National University of Singapore, Singapore
,
Briane Paul Samson
Future University Hakodate, Japan & De La Salle University, Philippines
,
Rafal Kocielnik
University of Washington, USA

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 April 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Conference

CHI '20

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI '20: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 25 - 30, 2020

HI, Honolulu, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

CHI 2025

Sponsor:
sigchi

ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 26 - May 1, 2025

Yokohama , Japan

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

19
Total Citations
View Citations
1,492
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)225
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)30

Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Cohen MKhavkin MMovsowitz Davidow DToch E(2024)ChatGPT in the public eye: Ethical principles and generative concerns in social media discussionsNew Media & Society10.1177/14614448241279034Online publication date: 21-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241279034
Baldry MHappa JSteed ASmith SGlencross M(2024)From Embodied Abuse to Mass Disruption: Generative, Inter-Reality Threats in Social, Mixed-Reality PlatformsDigital Threats: Research and Practice10.1145/36960155:4(1-36)Online publication date: 17-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3696015
Yin MXiao R(2024)How We See Changes How We Feel: Investigating the Effect of Visual Point-of-View on Decision-Making in VR EnvironmentsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869338:CSCW2(1-27)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686933
Scuotto CTriberti SIavarone MLimone P(2024)Digital interventions to support morality: A scoping reviewBritish Journal of Educational Psychology10.1111/bjep.1270694:4(1072-1090)Online publication date: 27-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12706
Salagean AWu MFletcher GCosker DFraser D(2024)The Utilitarian Virtual Self – Using Embodied Personalized Avatars to Investigate Moral Decision-Making in Semi-Autonomous Vehicle DilemmasIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics10.1109/TVCG.2024.337212130:5(2162-2172)Online publication date: 4-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3372121
Jang JWallraven C(2024)Whom to Save? A Novel, Realistic Paradigm for Studying Human Decision-Making in Moral Dilemmas2024 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct)10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct64951.2024.00105(389-390)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct64951.2024.00105
Kissel ARechowicz KShull J(2023)Murder on the VR Express: Studying the Impact of Thought Experiments at a Distance in Virtual RealitySocieties10.3390/soc1303006913:3(69)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13030069
Bajorunaite LBrewster SWilliamson J(2023)Reality Anchors: Bringing Cues from Reality to Increase Acceptance of Immersive Technologies in TransitProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36042667:MHCI(1-28)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3604266
Harrison T(2023)Virtual reality and character education: Learning opportunities and risksJournal of Moral Education10.1080/03057240.2023.220655353:2(219-239)Online publication date: 16-May-2023
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2023.2206553
Idrees AMorton MDabrowski G(2022)Advancing Extended Reality Teaching and Learning Opportunities Across the Disciplines in Higher Education2022 8th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN)10.23919/iLRN55037.2022.9815897(1-8)Online publication date: 30-May-2022
https://doi.org/10.23919/iLRN55037.2022.9815897
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents