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

Study shows that people switch their morality in the heat of the moment
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
Journal information: PLoS ONE

Citation: Study shows that people switch their morality in the heat of the moment (2016, October 11) retrieved 20 April 2019 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-10-people-morality-moment.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

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.

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.

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