AI Use Conditions and Perspective Diversity in Ethical Decision-Making: A Pilot Study of Human Reasoning Processes
TL;DR
It is suggested that generative AI may not necessarily alter final ethical judgments but may be associated with broader exploration of perspectives prior to reaching those judgments.
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.
