@article{GogollUhl2020, author = {Gogoll, Jan and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {Leviathan for sale}, volume = {2020}, pages = {101898}, journal = {European Journal of Political Economy}, subtitle = {the fallacy of trusting in people instead of institutions}, number = {63}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0176-2680}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2020.101898}, year = {2020}, abstract = {We experimentally test Hume's hypothesis that people underappreciate the value of cooperation-enforcing institutions in impersonal interactions by relying on personal trust. Subjects played a game in groups of two or six. Each subject could defect at any time, leaving the others with zero payoff by unilaterally appropriating an amount of money that grew over a period of 5 ​minutes. All players received the maximum payoff only if nobody defected. Before the game, subjects could purchase a cooperation-enforcing institution. Their willingness to pay for this institution fell short of the loss caused by failed cooperation under institution-free play. This was even true for the best-off subject in an institution-free society. In the absence of learning, people indeed fell prey to the atavistic fallacy of trusting in people instead of institutions. Understanding this bias might help people in complex societies to acknowledge the value of institutions intellectually.}, language = {en} } @unpublished{KruegelOstermaierUhl2023, author = {Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Ostermaier, Andreas and Uhl, Matthias}, title = {The moral authority of ChatGPT}, publisher = {arXiv}, address = {Ithaca}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.07098}, year = {2023}, abstract = {ChatGPT is not only fun to chat with, but it also searches information, answers questions, and gives advice. With consistent moral advice, it might improve the moral judgment and decisions of users, who often hold contradictory moral beliefs. Unfortunately, ChatGPT turns out highly inconsistent as a moral advisor. Nonetheless, it influences 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 threatens to corrupt rather than improves users' judgment. These findings raise the question of how to ensure the responsible use of ChatGPT and similar AI. Transparency is often touted but seems ineffective. We propose training to improve digital literacy.}, 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{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} } @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{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} } @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{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} }