AI Use Conditions and Perspective Diversity in Ethical Decision-Making: A Pilot Study of Human Reasoning Processes

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.13302v1
• Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 05:52:30 GMT
• Title: AI Use Conditions and Perspective Diversity in Ethical Decision-Making: A Pilot Study of Human Reasoning Processes
• Abstract summary: This pilot study explored whether different AI-use conditions were associated with differences in reasoning breadth during ethical decision-making.<n>Twenty-nine participants completed an ethical dilemma under one of three conditions.<n>Participants across conditions generally converged on similar ethical conclusions, most commonly favoring disclosure and customer protection.<n>Participants in the AI-Mandatory condition considered a broader range of perspectives, including legal, regulatory, organizational, technical, and ethical viewpoints.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to support human decision-making, yet less attention has been paid to how AI may influence the reasoning processes that precede final judgments. This pilot study explored whether different AI-use conditions were associated with differences in reasoning breadth during ethical decision-making. Twenty-nine participants completed an ethical dilemma under one of three conditions: AI-Prohibited (n = 10), AI-Optional (n = 10), or AI-Mandatory (n = 9). Responses were evaluated by three independent blind coders using two exploratory measures: the Counterargument Diversity Score (CDS) and Perspective Diversity Index (PDI). Participants across conditions generally converged on similar ethical conclusions, most commonly favoring disclosure and customer protection. However, participants in the AI-Mandatory condition considered a broader range of perspectives, including legal, regulatory, organizational, technical, and ethical viewpoints. A statistically significant overall difference in PDI scores was observed across the three conditions, whereas differences in CDS were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that generative AI may not necessarily alter final ethical judgments but may be associated with broader exploration of perspectives prior to reaching those judgments. Given the small sample size, the findings should be interpreted cautiously and examined in larger studies.

Related papers

• Psychological features of dispute content and public acceptance of AI in legal adjudication: evidence for systematic variation beyond individual differences [0.0]
  We examined whether psychological characteristics of dispute content shape acceptability judgments for algorithmic adjudication.<n>We found that experimentally manipulated contextual features - emotional involvement and prototypicality - modulated acceptability judgments.<n>These findings suggest that the psychological features of dispute content constitute an overlooked dimension in AI acceptance research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T09:10:43Z)
• A phenomenon of AI-conformity: how algorithms change human moral decision-making [0.0]
  The present study examined whether AI judgements affect moral decision-making in humans.<n>The results suggest that even moral judgements, despite their sensitivity and personal significance, may be susceptible to algorithmic conformity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T09:09:27Z)
• Ethical AI in the Healthcare Sector: Investigating Key Drivers of Adoption through the Multi-Dimensional Ethical AI Adoption Model (MEAAM) [1.5458951336481048]
  This study introduces the Multi-Dimensional Ethical AI Adoption Model (MEAAM)<n>It categorizes 13 critical ethical variables across four foundational dimensions of Ethical AI Fair AI, Responsible AI, Explainable AI, and Sustainable AI.<n>It investigates the influence of these ethical constructs on two outcomes Operational AI Adoption and Systemic AI Adoption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-04T10:40:05Z)
• Bridging the Gap: Integrating Ethics and Environmental Sustainability in AI Research and Practice [57.94036023167952]
  We argue that the efforts aiming to study AI's ethical ramifications should be made in tandem with those evaluating its impacts on the environment.<n>We propose best practices to better integrate AI ethics and sustainability in AI research and practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T13:53:11Z)
• On Benchmarking Human-Like Intelligence in Machines [77.55118048492021]
  We argue that current AI evaluation paradigms are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities.<n>We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically-invalid tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T20:21:36Z)
• Why (not) use AI? Analyzing People's Reasoning and Conditions for AI Acceptability [17.420096756296896]
  We investigate the demographic and reasoning factors that influence people's judgments about AI's development.<n>We find lower acceptance of labor-replacement usage over personal health.<n>We observe unified reasoning type (e.g., cost-benefit reasoning) leading to higher agreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T06:06:47Z)
• Perception Gaps in Risk, Benefit, and Value Between Experts and Public Challenge Socially Accepted AI [0.0]
  This study examines how the general public and academic AI experts perceive AI's capabilities and impact.<n>The scenarios span domains such as sustainability, healthcare, job performance, societal inequality, art, and warfare.<n>Experts consistently anticipate higher probabilities, perceive lower risks, report greater benefits, and express more positive sentiment toward AI compared to the non-experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T12:51:45Z)
• Beyond Recommender: An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Different AI Roles in AI-Assisted Decision Making [48.179458030691286]
  We examine three AI roles: Recommender, Analyzer, and Devil's Advocate. Our results show each role's distinct strengths and limitations in task performance, reliance appropriateness, and user experience. These insights offer valuable implications for designing AI assistants with adaptive functional roles according to different situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T07:32:28Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• How Different Groups Prioritize Ethical Values for Responsible AI [75.40051547428592]
  Private companies, public sector organizations, and academic groups have outlined ethical values they consider important for responsible AI technologies. While their recommendations converge on a set of central values, little is known about the values a more representative public would find important for the AI technologies they interact with and might be affected by. We conducted a survey examining how individuals perceive and prioritize responsible AI values across three groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-16T14:39:37Z)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.