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

Intensive behavior therapy no better than conventional support in treating teenagers with antisocial behavior

January 19, 2018
Research led by UCL has found that intensive and costly multisystemic therapy is no better than conventional therapy in treating teenagers with moderate to severe antisocial behaviour.

Babies' babbling betters brains, language

January 18, 2018
Babies are adept at getting what they need - including an education. New research shows that babies organize mothers' verbal responses, which promotes more effective language instruction, and infant babbling is the key.

College branding makes beer more salient to underage students

January 18, 2018
In recent years, major beer companies have tried to capitalize on the salience of students' university affiliations, unveiling marketing campaigns and products—such as "fan cans," store displays, and billboard ads—that ...

Inherited IQ can increase in early childhood

January 18, 2018
When it comes to intelligence, environment and education matter – more than we think.

Modulating molecules: Study shows oxytocin helps the brain to modulate social signals

January 17, 2018
Between sights, sounds, smells and other senses, the brain is flooded with stimuli on a moment-to-moment basis. How can it sort through the flood of information to decide what is important and what can be relegated to the ...

Baby brains help infants figure it out before they try it out

January 17, 2018
Babies often amaze their parents when they seemingly learn new skills overnight—how to walk, for example. But their brains were probably prepping for those tasks long before their first steps occurred, according to researchers.

3 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NoStrings
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.
FredJose
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.
barakn
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.