Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42865575›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Goodness behind a wheel: moral judgment in realistic traffic simulations featuring Agents, Deeds, and Consequences.

Dario Cecchini, Michael Pflanzer, Sam Cacace, Veljko Dubljevic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Dario CecchiniNeurocomputational Ethics Research Group, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States.
Michael PflanzerNeurocomputational Ethics Research Group, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States.
Sam CacaceSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom.
Veljko DubljevicNeurocomputational Ethics Research Group, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Investigating how different stakeholders evaluate traffic situations is essential for aligning autonomous vehicle (AV) decision-making with common-sense moral expectations. Yet, empirical studies on traffic moral judgment remain limited and almost exclusively focused on dramatic high-stakes situations. To address this gap, this paper presents two studies testing moral judgment in low-stakes ordinary traffic simulations. Drawing on the ADC model of moral judgment, both studies systematically manipulated key moral features: the character of the driver (Agent), adherence to traffic rules (Deed), and the presence or absence of a collision (Consequences). These components were embedded in a variety of stimuli, including textual vignettes, computer-generated video clips, and immersive audio-visual simulations. Data were collected from both expert ethicists (Study 1) and lay participants (Study 2). The results show that participants' moral judgments were consistently and strongly influenced by the character of the agent, whereas the effects of rule compliance and consequences were less robust. The mode of presentation (textual vs. audio-visual) significantly moderated these effects in mixed ways, suggesting that different formats may be better suited to conveying specific types of moral information. Notably, Study 1 revealed that expert ethicists tended to converge in their evaluations of low-stakes traffic scenarios, despite endorsing different moral theories. This convergence supports the feasibility of designing AV decision-making algorithms based on shared ethical judgments. Furthermore, the findings highlight that character-based considerations play a significant role in moral judgment of traffic scenarios-alongside deontological and consequentialist reasoning.

Indexed as

ADC modelautonomous vehicles ethicsmoral psychologytraffic moral judgmentVirtual reality simulations

Identifiers

PMID42865575
PMCPMC13654839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.