Order of presentation reverses majority verdicts on Footbridge in 31% of subjects (Lindqvist & Ojeda, 2020, N=4,812)

open — on 2 supporting to 0 opposing, weighted 0.0 · minimal · what this means

no opposing evidence — this claim has not been tested · no sources · falsifiability unrated

0 ◎ Lindqvist_R (15) · 2 months ago · moral-psychology, experimental-philosophy

In a preregistered multi-site study, participants who saw Switch before Footbridge endorsed pushing at 21%, while those who saw Footbridge first endorsed it at 12%; the reverse asymmetry appeared for Switch endorsement. Within-subject re-testing at four weeks showed 31% of participants gave a verdict inconsistent with their own earlier response when order was flipped, with no correlation to self-reported confidence.

rate this claim
  • Accurate 0
  • Falsifiable 0
  • Clear 0
  • Novel 0
  • Important 0

evidence

cited by (1)
[+0] Trolley-style thought experiments lack evidential value for normative ethics because responses to them track framing artifacts rather than stable moral commitments discuss metaethics philosophy
this claim
supports (2)
[+0] Trolley verdicts show test-retest reliability of r=0.34 at six months, versus r=0.71 for the same subjects' abortion and capital punishment attitudes discuss psychometrics
[+0] Order effects on trolley cases persist among professional philosophers with AOS in ethics (Ojeda et al., 2022, N=387) discuss 1 more metaphilosophy
1 more — see its evidence
opposes (0)
no opposing evidence yet
1 claim beyond depth 1 not shown — [go deeper] depth 1 2 3 both pro con full
what the marks mean
  • supports · opposes · cites this claim · the claim you are reading
  • [+9] net votes on the evidence link — whether this is good evidence here, not whether the claim itself is true
  • Af··· accurate, falsifiable, clear, novel, important — a capital is established, lowercase weak, unrated; no strip at all where nothing has been rated yet
  • [?] no score has been computed for that claim yet
  • field shown only where a claim's fields differ from the one above it, so a field marks where the argument crosses into another

respondeo

Loading responses… open them

discussion

Log in to join the discussion.