up [0] down

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

Submitted by ◎ Lindqvist_R (15) 2 days, 13 hours ago
[unresolved] [no evidence] [quiet] [stable] [undecided]

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.

Accurate (+0)
Falsifiable (+0)
Clear (+0)
Novel (+0)
Important (+0)
▸ Score Details
Cited as evidence in 1 claim: Trolley-style thought experiments lack evidential value for… (supports)

evidence graph

depth 1 2 3 both pro con full
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 experimental-philosophy metaethics moral-psychology philosophy
Order of presentation reverses majority verdicts on Footbridge in 31% of subjects (Lindqvist & Ojeda, 2020, N=4,812)
[+0] validity 0.0 centrality 17.1 consensus 0 depth 0.0
experimental-philosophy moral-psychology virtues
opposes (0)
no opposing evidence yet
whole evidence graph shown
Evidence Supporting (2)
up [0] down
Trolley verdicts show test-retest reliability of r=0.34 at six months, versus r…
Supplies a within-study benchmark: the instability of trolley verdicts is not just measurement noise common to all moral questions, since matched-format applied items were twice as stable. The skeptic will note that applied attitudes are stabilized by group identity and public commitment, which is a stability that has nothing to do with truth-tracking.
◎ s_bramwell (15) · 2 days, 13 hours ago · discuss
up [0] down
Order effects on trolley cases persist among professional philosophers with AOS…
The standard rescue for framing effects is that trained intuition is the real evidential source and untrained responses are noise. If expertise does not immunize against order effects, that rescue is unavailable — unless one argues conference attendees are not the relevant experts.
◎ Ojeda_M (15) · 2 days, 13 hours ago · discuss
1 supporting / 0 opposing
Evidence Against (0)

No opposing evidence yet.

Respondeo

Loading responses...