@article{KruegelOstermaierUhl2023, author = {Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Ostermaier, Andreas and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {ChatGPT's inconsistent moral advice influences users' judgment}, volume = {13}, pages = {4569}, journal = {Scientific Reports}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, address = {London}, issn = {2045-2322}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31341-0}, year = {2023}, abstract = {AbstractChatGPT is not only fun to chat with, but it also searches information, answers questions, and gives advice. With consistent moral advice, it can improve the moral judgment and decisions of users. Unfortunately, ChatGPT's advice is not consistent. Nonetheless, it does influence users' moral judgment, we find in an experiment, even if they know they are advised by a chatting bot, and they underestimate how much they are influenced. Thus, ChatGPT corrupts rather than improves its users' moral judgment. While these findings call for better design of ChatGPT and similar bots, we also propose training to improve users' digital literacy as a remedy. Transparency, however, is not sufficient to enable the responsible use of AI.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{RosbachAmmelingKruegeletal.2025, author = {Rosbach, Emely and Ammeling, Jonas and Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Kießig, Angelika and Fritz, Alexis and Ganz, Jonathan and Puget, Chlo{\´e} and Donovan, Taryn and Klang, Andrea and K{\"o}ller, Maximilian C. and Bolfa, Pompei and Tecilla, Marco and Denk, Daniela and Kiupel, Matti and Paraschou, Georgios and Kok, Mun Keong and Haake, Alexander F. H. and de Krijger, Ronald R. and Sonnen, Andreas F.-P. and Kasantikul, Tanit and Dorrestein, Gerry M. and Smedley, Rebecca C. and Stathonikos, Nikolas and Uhl, Matthias and Bertram, Christof and Riener, Andreas and Aubreville, Marc}, title = {"When Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" - Examining Confirmation Bias and the Role of Time Pressure During Human-AI Collaboration in Computational Pathology}, pages = {528}, booktitle = {CHI'25: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems}, editor = {Yamashita, Naomi and Evers, Vanessa and Yatani, Koji and Ding, Xianghua and Lee, Bongshin and Chetty, Marshini and Toups-Dugas, Phoebe}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York}, isbn = {979-8-4007-1394-1}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713319}, year = {2025}, abstract = {Artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support systems hold promise for enhancing diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, human-AI collaboration can introduce and amplify cognitive biases, like confirmation bias caused by false confirmation when erroneous human opinions are reinforced by inaccurate AI output. This bias may increase under time pressure, a ubiquitous factor in routine pathology, as it strains practitioners' cognitive resources. We quantified confirmation bias triggered by AI-induced false confirmation and examined the role of time constraints in a web-based experiment, where trained pathology experts (n=28) estimated tumor cell percentages. Our results suggest that AI integration fuels confirmation bias, evidenced by a statistically significant positive linear-mixed-effects model coefficient linking AI recommendations mirroring flawed human judgment and alignment with system advice. Conversely, time pressure appeared to weaken this relationship. These findings highlight potential risks of AI in healthcare and aim to support the safe integration of clinical decision support systems.}, language = {en} } @article{AlfanoRuschUhl2018, author = {Alfano, Mark and Rusch, Hannes and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {Ethics, morality, and game theory}, volume = {9}, pages = {20}, journal = {Games}, number = {2}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {2073-4336}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3390/g9020020}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Ethics is a field in which the gap between words and actions looms large. Game theory and the empirical methods it inspires look at behavior instead of the lip service people sometimes pay to norms. We believe that this special issue comprises several illustrations of the fruitful application of this approach to ethics.}, language = {en} } @article{KruegelUhl2023, author = {Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {The behavioral economics of dynamically inconsistent behavior: a critical assessment}, volume = {61}, journal = {Social Choice and Welfare}, number = {4}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {0176-1714}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-023-01471-5}, pages = {817 -- 833}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Preferences often change—even in short time intervals—due to either the mere passage of time (present-biased preferences) or changes in visceral or environmental conditions (state-dependent preferences). On the basis of empirical findings concerning state-dependent preferences, we critically discuss the "Aristotelian" view of unitary decision makers in economics. We illustrate that the conceptualization of preferences as "present-biased" as opposed to "state-dependent" has very different normative implications for which preferences should be considered "rational." Empirically, however, the two concepts are very difficult to distinguish. The economist can justify any paternalistic intervention if she can conceptualize changing preferences so flexibly, and she can easily become a benevolent despot. We therefore urge for a more careful "Heraclitean" view of decision-making that accepts that a person may consist of multiple selves.}, language = {en} } @article{KruegelOstermaierUhl2022, author = {Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Ostermaier, Andreas and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {Zombies in the Loop? Humans Trust Untrustworthy AI-Advisors for Ethical Decisions}, volume = {35}, pages = {17}, journal = {Philosophy \& Technology}, number = {1}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dodrecht}, issn = {2210-5441}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00511-9}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Departing from the claim that AI needs to be trustworthy, we find that ethical advice from an AI-powered algorithm is trusted even when its users know nothing about its training data and when they learn information about it that warrants distrust. We conducted online experiments where the subjects took the role of decision-makers who received advice from an algorithm on how to deal with an ethical dilemma. We manipulated the information about the algorithm and studied its influence. Our findings suggest that AI is overtrusted rather than distrusted. We suggest digital literacy as a potential remedy to ensure the responsible use of AI.}, language = {en} } @article{OstermaierUhl2020, author = {Ostermaier, Andreas and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {Performance evaluation and creativity}, volume = {2020}, pages = {101552}, journal = {Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics}, subtitle = {balancing originality and usefulness}, number = {86}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {2214-8043}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101552}, year = {2020}, language = {en} } @article{KruegelUhl2024, author = {Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {The risk ethics of autonomous vehicles: an empirical approach}, volume = {14}, pages = {960}, journal = {Scientific Reports}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, address = {London}, issn = {2045-2322}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51313-2}, year = {2024}, abstract = {How would people distribute risks of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in everyday road traffic? The rich literature on the ethics of autonomous vehicles (AVs) revolves around moral judgments in unavoidable collision scenarios. We argue for extending the debate to driving behaviors in everyday road traffic where ubiquitous ethical questions arise due to the permanent redistribution of risk among road users. This distribution of risks raises ethically relevant questions that cannot be evaded by simple heuristics such as "hitting the brakes." Using an interactive, graphical representation of different traffic situations, we measured participants' preferences on driving maneuvers of AVs in a representative survey in Germany. Our participants' preferences deviated significantly from mere collision avoidance. Interestingly, our participants were willing to take risks themselves for the benefit of other road users, suggesting that the social dilemma of AVs may be mitigated in risky environments. Our research might build a bridge between engineers and philosophers to discuss the ethics of AVs more constructively.}, language = {en} } @unpublished{KruegelUhl2022, author = {Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {The risk ethics of autonomous vehicles: a continuous trolley problem in regular road traffic}, publisher = {arXiv}, address = {Ithaca}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.03258}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Is the ethics of autonomous vehicles (AVs) restricted to weighing lives in unavoidable accidents? We argue that AVs distribute risks between road users in regular traffic situations, either explicitly or implicitly. This distribution of risks raises ethically relevant questions that cannot be evaded by simple heuristics such as "hitting the brakes." Using an interactive, graphical representation of different traffic situations, we measured participants' preferences on driving maneuvers of AVs in a representative survey in Germany. Our participants' preferences deviated significantly from mere collision avoidance. Interestingly, our participants were willing to take risks themselves for the benefit of other road users suggesting that the social dilemma of AVs may lessen in a context of risk.}, language = {en} } @article{MaxUhl2021, author = {Max, Raphael and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {The downside of moralizing financial markets}, volume = {2021}, pages = {100512}, journal = {Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance}, subtitle = {anti-semitic stereotypes in German MTurkers}, number = {31}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {2214-6350}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2021.100512}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @article{KruegelUhl2021, author = {Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {Autonomous vehicles and moral judgments under risk}, volume = {2022}, journal = {Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice}, number = {155}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0965-8564}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.10.016}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @article{JauernigUhl2018, author = {Jauernig, Johanna and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {Spite and preemptive retaliation after tournaments}, volume = {2019}, journal = {Journal of Economic Behavior \& Organization}, number = {158}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {1879-1751}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.12.001}, pages = {328 -- 336}, year = {2018}, language = {en} } @book{LuetgeUhl2021, author = {L{\"u}tge, Christoph and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {Business ethics}, subtitle = {an economically informed perspective}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-263385-9}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198864776.001.0001}, pages = {x, 332}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @article{UhlLuetge2018, author = {Uhl, Matthias and L{\"u}tge, Christoph}, title = {Teaching Business Ethics with Experiments}, volume = {15}, journal = {Journal of Business Ethics Education}, publisher = {NeilsonJournals Publishing}, address = {Edinburgh}, issn = {2044-4559}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.5840/jbee20181510}, pages = {203 -- 217}, year = {2018}, language = {en} } @article{GogollUhl2018, author = {Gogoll, Jan and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {Rage against the machine: Automation in the moral domain}, volume = {2018}, journal = {Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics}, number = {74}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {2214-8043}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2018.04.003}, pages = {97 -- 103}, year = {2018}, language = {en} } @article{LevatiUhlZultan2013, author = {Levati, Maria Vittoria and Uhl, Matthias and Zultan, Ro'i}, title = {Imperfect recall and time inconsistencies: an experimental test of the absentminded driver "paradox"}, volume = {43}, journal = {International Journal of Game Theory}, number = {1}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Heidelberg}, issn = {1432-1270}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00182-013-0373-y}, pages = {65 -- 88}, year = {2013}, language = {en} } @article{KatariaLevatiUhl2014, author = {Kataria, Mitesh and Levati, Maria Vittoria and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {Paternalism with hindsight: do prot{\´e}g{\´e}s react consequentialistically to paternalism?}, volume = {43}, journal = {Social Choice and Welfare}, number = {3}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {1432-217X}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-014-0800-4}, pages = {731 -- 746}, year = {2014}, language = {en} } @inbook{SchoenmannUhl2023, author = {Sch{\"o}nmann, Manuela and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {Eine ethische Perspektive auf KI in der Bildung}, booktitle = {K{\"u}nstliche Intelligenz in der Bildung}, editor = {de Witt, Claudia and Gloerfeld, Christina and Wrede, Silke Elisabeth}, publisher = {Springer VS}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {978-3-658-40079-8}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40079-8_21}, pages = {433 -- 453}, year = {2023}, language = {de} } @unpublished{RosbachAmmelingKruegeletal.2024, author = {Rosbach, Emely and Ammeling, Jonas and Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Kießig, Angelika and Fritz, Alexis and Ganz, Jonathan and Puget, Chlo{\´e} and Donovan, Taryn and Klang, Andrea and K{\"o}ller, Maximilian C. and Bolfa, Pompei and Tecilla, Marco and Denk, Daniela and Kiupel, Matti and Paraschou, Georgios and Kok, Mun Keong and Haake, Alexander F. H. and de Krijger, Ronald R. and Sonnen, Andreas F.-P. and Kasantikul, Tanit and Dorrestein, Gerry M. and Smedley, Rebecca C. and Stathonikos, Nikolas and Uhl, Matthias and Bertram, Christof and Riener, Andreas and Aubreville, Marc}, title = {"When TwoWrongs Don't Make a Right" - Examining Confirmation Bias and the Role of Time Pressure During Human-AI Collaboration in Computational Pathology}, publisher = {arXiv}, address = {Ithaca}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.01007}, year = {2024}, language = {en} } @article{BodenschatzUhlWalkowitz2021, author = {Bodenschatz, Anja and Uhl, Matthias and Walkowitz, Gari}, title = {Autonomous systems in ethical dilemmas}, volume = {2021}, pages = {100145}, journal = {Computers in human behavior reports}, subtitle = {attitudes toward randomization}, number = {4}, publisher = {Amsterdam}, address = {Elsevier}, issn = {2451-9588}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100145}, year = {2021}, abstract = {It is ethically debatable whether autonomous systems should be programmed to actively impose harm on some to avoid greater harm for others. Surveys on ethical dilemmas in self-driving cars' programming have shown that people favor imposing harm on some people to save others from suffering and are consequently willing to sacrifice smaller groups to save larger ones in unavoidable accident situations. This is, if people are forced to directly impose harm. Contrary to humans, autonomous systems feature a salient deontological alternative for immediate decisions: the ability to randomize decisions over dilemmatic outcomes. To be applicable in democracies, randomization must correspond to people's moral intuition. In three studies (N = 935), we present empirical evidence that many people prefer to randomize between dilemmatic outcomes due to moral considerations. We find these preferences in hypothetical and incentivized decision-making situations. We also find that preferences are robust in different contexts and persist across Germany, with its Kantian cultural tradition, and the US, with its utilitarian cultural tradition.}, language = {en} } @article{GrundherrJauernigUhl2021, author = {Grundherr, Michael von and Jauernig, Johanna and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {To condemn is not to punish}, volume = {12}, pages = {38}, journal = {Games}, subtitle = {an experiment on hypocrisy}, number = {2}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {2073-4336}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3390/g12020038}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Hypocrisy is the act of claiming moral standards to which one's own behavior does not conform. Instances of hypocrisy, such as the supposedly green furnishing group IKEA's selling of furniture made from illegally felled wood, are frequently reported in the media. In a controlled and incentivized experiment, we investigate how observers rate different types of hypocritical behavior and if this judgment also translates into punishment. Results show that observers do, indeed, condemn hypocritical behavior strongly. The aversion to deceptive behavior is, in fact, so strong that even purely self-deceptive behavior is regarded as blameworthy. Observers who score high in the moral identity test have particularly strong reactions to acts of hypocrisy. The moral condemnation of hypocritical behavior, however, fails to produce a proportional amount of punishment. Punishment seems to be driven more by the violation of the norm of fair distribution than by moral pretense. From the viewpoint of positive retributivism, it is problematic if neither formal nor informal punishment follows moral condemnation.}, language = {en} } @article{MigrowUhl2011, author = {Migrow, Dimitri and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {The Resolution Game: A Dual Selves Perspective}, volume = {2}, journal = {Games}, number = {4}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {2073-4336}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3390/g2040452}, pages = {452 -- 462}, year = {2011}, abstract = {This article explains the emergence of an unique equilibrium resolution as the result of a compromise between two selves with different preferences. The stronger this difference is, the more generous the resolution gets. This result is in contrast to predictions of other models in which sinful consumption is distributed bimodally. Therefore, our result fits better with our daily observations concerning a lot of ambivalent goods where we often form nonrigid resolutions. The normative analysis uses the device of a hypothetical impartial self that regards both conflicting motives as equally legitimate. The result of this analysis is dilemmatic. It demonstrates that the resolution is broken too often to be welfare maximal. However, the introduction of external self-commitment devices results in their overuse and is welfare decreasing.}, language = {en} }