Psychological Factors in Resolving Moral Dilemmas in Graphic Presentation vs Virtual Environment

Abstract

Background. Technological advances, such as the emergence of self-driving cars, challenge the established social norms and values, raising the question of whether the expectations for a driver's actions in a critical situation are the same as those for a self-driving car. Investigating the psychological factors that determine moral choices in critical situations involving interactions with technology is becoming increasingly important, which is the purpose of this article.

Objective. A study of choice factors in solving moral dilemmas (using the example of driving a car in different conditions).

Study Participants. Sample 1: online panel respondents, N = 473 people (47% — male, 53% — female), aged 18 to 73 years (M = 33.5 years, SD = 14.7 years); Sample 2: students, N = 36, aged 18 to 26 years.

Methods. The first stage implemented moral dilemmas modeled by the authors on the MoralMachine platform; Moral Foundations Questionnaire; Attitudes toward technologies questionnaire; Dark Tetrad (D.S. Kornienko); questionnaire "Personality factors in decision making". In the second stage, moral dilemmas were modeled and presented as scenarios in the Varwin Education environment, which made it possible to evaluate respondents' choices in virtual reality.

Results. Analysis of the obtained data revealed that in the driver-driven car situation, "Machiavellianism" and "narcissism" are significant predictors of moral choice, with "loyalty to the group" serving as the moral foundation. In the self-driving car situation, the significant predictors of moral choice are "Machiavellianism," "narcissism," "respect for authority," "readiness to risk" and "techno-rationalism." Perceptions of one's choice in situations of static presentation of an ethical dilemma significantly differ from the actual choice made when it is presented dynamically in virtual reality.

Conclusions. Moral choices in a situation with a self-driving car are more complexly determined than in the same situation with a human driver. There are certain differences in the resolution of ethical dilemmas presented in different forms: when presented statically, most respondents choose to avoid hitting pedestrians, while when directly driving a car (dynamic VR-presentation), the option to hit pedestrians and the option to hit an obstacle are chosen equally often.

References

Akmaev, V.A., Kornienko, D.S. (2025). Dynamics of negative attitudes and anxiety toward interaction with humanoid robot: an experimental study. Theoretical and Experimental Psychology, 18(1), 9–26. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.11621/TEP-25-01

Bodenschatz, A. (2024). When own interest stands against the "greater good" — Decision randomization in ethical dilemmas of autonomous systems that involve their user's self-interest. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(2), 100097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100097

Bykov, N.V., Kostrov, M.A. (2026). Mitigating social dilemmas in public transport choice through autonomous vehicles on a homogeneous road link. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, (681), 131078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2025.131078

Chu, Y., Liu, P. (2023). Machines and humans in sacrificial moral dilemmas: Required similarly but judged differently? Cognition, (239), 105575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105575

Cohen, D.J., Quinlan, P.T. (2025). Why moral judgements change across variations of trolley-like problems. British Journal of Psychology. URL: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12782?af=R (дата обращения: 19.11.2025).

Crone, D.L., Laham, S.M. (2015). Multiple moral foundations predict responses to sacrificial dilemmas. Personality and Individual Differences, (85), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.041

Eliseeva, E.N. (2022). The mixed format of education is a promising direction of training students of economic specialties. Ehkonomika. Nalogi. Pravo = Economics, Taxes, Law, 15(6), 95–103. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26794/1999-849X-2022-15-6-95-103

Emelyanova, T.P., Drobysheva, T.V., Vikentieva, E.N., Tarasov, S.V. (2022). Activity of muscovites in the urban environment: the role of the responsibility factor. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Psikhologiya i pedagogika = RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics, 19(1), 7–20. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1683-2022-19-1-7-20

Enikolopov, S.N., Medvedeva, T.I., Vorontsova, O.Yu. (2019). Moral dilemmas and personality traits. Psikhologiia i parvo = Psychology and Law, 9(2), 141–155. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2019090210

Faulhaber, A.K., Dittmer, A., Blind, F., Wächter, M.A., Timm, S., Sütfeld, L.R., Stephan, A., Pipa, G., König, P. (2019). Human decisions in moral dilemmas are largely described by utilitarianism: Virtual car driving study provides guidelines for autonomous driving vehicles. Science and Engineering Ethics, (25), 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0020-x

Garskova, G.G. (2008). Interaction styles of students in situations of moral choice. Uchenye zapiski Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta psikhologii i sotsial'noi raboty = Scientific Notes Journal of St. Petersburg State Institute of Psychology and Social Work, 9(1), 23–25. (In Russ.)

Kharchenko, K.V. (2025). The state and prospects of digitalization of the urban environment and urban economy. Ekonomika. Nalogi. Prawo = Economics, Taxes and Law, 18(3), 112–120. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26794/1999-849X-2025-18-3-112-120

Klementyeva, M.V. (2024). The tolerance of ambiguity in the virtual identity statuses among student users of online platforms. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 15(4), 109–122. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2024150408

Kornienko, D.S., Vyazovkina, V.K., Gornostaev, I.S. (2022). Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Dark Tetrad Short Questionnaire. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Psychological Journal, 43(5), 87–98. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920022787-1

Kornilova, T.V. (1994). Diagnostics of "personal factors" in decision-making. Voprosy Psikhologii, (6), 99–109. (In Russ.)

Kornilova, T.V. (2003). Psychology of risk and decision-making. Moscow: Aspect Press Publ. (In Russ.)

Koval, E.A. (2022). Correlation between "ought" and "can": moral aspects of the choice of religious person. Eticheskaya Mysl' = Ethical Thought, 22(2), 21–33. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2022-22-2-21-33

Madary, M., Metzinger, T. (2016). Real virtuality: A code of ethical conduct. Recommendations for good scientific practice and the consumers of VR-technology. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, (3), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00003

Melekhina, T.L., Kochetkov, A.A. (2024). Improving the reliability and efficiency of transport systems as a result of reducing their accident rate. Ekonomika. Nalogi. Prawo = Economics, Taxes and Law, 17(3), 58–68. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26794/1999-849X-2024-17-3-58-68

Nestik, T.A., Zhuravlev, A.L. (2018). Psychology of global risks. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of the RAS Publ. (In Russ.)

Ng, N.L., Neumann, C.S., Luke, D.M., Gawronski, B. (2024). Associations of aversive ('dark') traits and affiliative ('light') traits with moral-dilemma judgments: A preregistered exploratory analysis using the CNI model. Journal of Research in Personality, (109), 104450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104450

Novikova, I.A., Bychkova, P.A. (2024). Attitudes towards digital educational technologies among university students: concept, measurement, and gender differences. Theoretical and Experimental Psychology, 17(1), 70–84. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.11621/TEP-24-03

Plyaskina, A.S., Poddiakov, A.N. (2022). Visual representations of the "Trolley Problem" in internet memes: polytextual thematic analysis. Voprosy Psikhologii, 68(6), 64–79. (In Russ.)

Polikanova, I.S., Ksenzov, M.Yu., Melikov, R.T. (2025). Space perception in virtual reality in individuals after lower limb amputation. Lomonosov Psychology Journal, 48(4), 158–197. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.11621/LPJ-25-45

Saenko, A.Y. (2024). Socio-psychological determinants of the attitudes of various social groups towards autonomous vehicles as a technology of the future. Theoretical and Experimental Psychology, 17(3), 66–95. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.11621/TEP-24-25

Shabalin, A.P., Pervushina, O.N. (2018). Using the dilemma method in empirical studies of morality. Voprosy Psikhologii, (5), 78–87. (In Russ.)

Shchurina, S.V. (2023). The impact of the digital revolution on the development of artificial intelligence and the introduction of robot process automation into the activities of a modern company. Ekonomika. Nalogi. Prawo = Economics, Taxes and Law, 16(4), 65–75. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26794/1999-849X-2023-16-4-65-75

Soldatova, G.U., Nestik, T.A., Rasskazova, E.I., Dorokhov, E.A. (2021). Psychodiagnostics of technophobia and technophilia: development and testing a questionnaire of attitudes towards technology for adolescents and parents. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 12(4), 170–188. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2021120410

Solovova, N.A., Sharipova, E.R. (2021). Addressing the ethical dilemmas of overcoming the novel coronavirus infection causes COVID-19. Mir nauki. Pedagogika i psikhologiya = World of Science. Pedagogy and psychology, 9(6). (In Russ.). URL: https://mir-nauki.com/PDF/13PSMN621.pdf (accessed: 19.12.2025).

Sychev, O.A., Protasova, I.N., Belousov, K.I. (2018). Diagnosing moral foundations: testing of the Russian version of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. Rossiiskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Russian Psychological Journal, 15(3), 88–115. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21702/rpj.2018.3.5

Tulenty, D.S., Selivanova, M.A. (2025). The impact of unmanned aerial vehicles on risk situations and insurance interests: problem statement. Finansy: teoriya i praktika = Finance: Theory and Practice, 29(4), 196–209. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26794/2587-5671-2025-29-4-196-209

Weisbrod, E. (2009). The role of affect and tolerance of ambiguity in ethical decision making. Advances in Accounting, 25(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2009.02.011

Yachmeneva, N.P., Baleva, M.V., Kornienko, D.S. (2025). Mechanisms of moral disengagement: apriori probability and personality predictors. Lomonosov Psychology Journal, 48(2), 84–108. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.11621/LPJ-25-13

Yoo, Y., Kim, H., Park, J. (2025). Analysis of autonomous vehicle buyer's decisions: Balancing ethics with Innovation in the trolley dilemma. Accident Analysis and Prevention, (220), 108175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2025.108175

Zarutskaya, E.A. (2014). Manager professional ethics: ethical dilemmas, approaches to solution. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Ekonomika i upravlenie = Bulletin of the Tver State University. Series: Economics and Management, 1(4), 198–209. (In Russ.)

Zhu, S., Hsieh, C.-H. (2026). Analyse the moral dilemma facing autonomous vehicles with mixed logit model. Travel Behaviour and Society, (42), 101131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2025.101131

Zhuravlev, A.L., Yurevich, A.V. (2013). Psychology of morality as an area of psychological researches. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal, 34(3), 5–14. (In Russ.)