ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Goodness behind a wheel: moral judgment in realistic traffic simulations featuring Agents, Deeds, and Consequences.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.