Study shows that people switch their morality in the heat of the moment

October 11, 2016 by Amy Mcsweeny, University of Plymouth
Credit: University of Plymouth

Virtual reality technology could show how a person would really behave in a morally difficult situation – despite what he or she might claim on paper, according to new research by Plymouth University. 

The study led by Kathryn Francis, PhD student in the School of Psychology, found that people are more likely to sacrifice others for what they imagine to be the greater good when immersed in virtual reality.

In the dilemma, people had to decide whether to push a person off a bridge to block a train to save five people on the railway line below. The researchers found that people were more likely to make a sacrificial response – push the person off the bridge – in a than they would in the traditional text-based equivalent of the experiment. 

They also found that antisocial traits predicted sacrificial in virtual reality, but they did not predict moral judgements given in the text-based dilemma.

This study is the result of collaboration between Kathryn, Dr Sylvia Terbeck, Dr Michaela Gummerum, Dr Giorgio Ganis and Grace Anderson in the University's School of Psychology, and Dr Ian Howard and Charles Howard of the Centre for Robotics and Neural Systems.

The research suggests that Oculus Rift technology – the more commonly associated with home entertainment – could be a valuable tool for studying moral actions in a more accurate way than the more traditional approaches.

Kathryn, who is also part of the University's cognitive innovation doctoral programme, CogNovo, said: 

"Our results offer new insights into the nature of moral action beyond that of moral judgement. The disparity demonstrated here between moral judgements on paper and moral actions in virtual reality suggests that they may be driven by different processes. It supports the age-old saying of 'do as I say, not as I do', highlighting the real disparity between moral action and . With the emergence of these virtual technologies we can gain an insight into how we make difficult decisions when faced with an emotionally aversive dilemma."
Dr Sylvia Terbeck, Lecturer in Social Psychology and study co-author, added: 

"The possibility of using immersive in order to assess moral behaviour opens new prospects for future psychological assessment of anti-social behaviour."
Dr Ian Howard, Associate Professor in the Centre for Robotics and Neural Systems, said: 

"This is good example of applying gaming technology to carry out valuable behavioural research, and we are already adding touch into these simulations to make interactions even more realistic."

Explore further: In moral behavior, (virtual) reality is something else altogether

More information: Kathryn B. Francis et al. Virtual Morality: Transitioning from Moral Judgment to Moral Action?, PLOS ONE (2016). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164374

Related Stories

In moral behavior, (virtual) reality is something else altogether

January 15, 2014
"Moral" psychology has traditionally been studied by subjecting individuals to moral dilemmas, that is, hypothetical choices regarding typically dangerous scenarios, but it has rarely been validated "in the field". This limitation ...

Research tests how people make moral decisions using classic dilemmas

August 24, 2016
Is it acceptable and moral to sacrifice a few people's lives to save many others? An academic at City University London has developed a new model with colleagues to test in an unbiased way how people make such decisions using ...

Adults value overcoming temptation, kids value moral purity

October 5, 2016
Is it better to struggle with moral conflict and ultimately choose to do the right thing or to do the right thing without feeling any turmoil in the first place? New research suggests that your answer may depend on how old ...

Recommended for you

WHO recognises 'compulsive sexual behaviour' as mental disorder

July 15, 2018
The World Health Organization has recognised "compulsive sexual behaviour" as a mental disorder, but said Saturday it remained unclear if it was an addiction on a par with gambling or drug abuse.

How looking at the big picture can lead to better decisions

July 13, 2018
New research suggests how distancing yourself from a decision may help you make the choice that produces the most benefit for you and others affected.

Nature is proving to be awesome medicine for PTSD

July 13, 2018
The awe we feel in nature can dramatically reduce symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to UC Berkeley research that tracked psychological and physiological changes in war veterans and at-risk inner-city youth ...

Is depression during pregnancy on the rise?

July 13, 2018
(HealthDay)—Today's young mothers-to-be may be more likely to develop depression while pregnant than their own mothers were, a new study suggests.

Machine learning helps to predict the treatment outcomes of schizophrenia

July 12, 2018
Could the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders one day be aided through the help of machine learning? New research from the University of Alberta is bringing us closer to that future through a study published ...

Mental illness study to explore patients' self-assessments

July 12, 2018
As the mental health community pursues new ways to improve the lives of the severely ill, a University of Texas at Dallas researcher is focusing on what can be learned from patients' answers to a simple question: "How do ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2016
Same nonsense all over again. The laws are not set in a way that will call you a hero when you kill one innocent person to save five. You do it, and you spend rest of your life in prison. Most people will not do it, and rightfully so. The only overriding factor would be if that one person or at least one of five is one that you personally care about. Then you may decide to commit a crime, at the same time sacrificing yourself to decades in prison to save that one person.
Digging deeper - the hypothetical 5 - who are they? Are they worth saving? What if they are a gang, for example. Are they worth sacrificing another person to save them?
Summary - unrealistic experiment for low IQ people set up by low IQ psychologists.
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2016
I must agree In one specific way with the researchers:
moral judgement
is a very difficult thing to put into practice in the blink of an eye and under pressure. This is why they have made the finding that their results differ radically from the paper based exercise because the time to think it thru is not there in the game.

Here is perhaps a more realistic dilemma: If your dearly beloved pet is in danger of drowning in a deep pond/dam along with a neighbour who/what would you save? The pet or the neighbour - given that you have the means and ability to save only one or the other, not both.
not rated yet Oct 20, 2016
If you think that's a dilemma, you're an even more twisted individual than I thought.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.