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

evidence graph

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 [i] metaethics philosophy
Order of presentation reverses majority verdicts on Footbridge in 31% of subjects (Lindqvist & Ojeda, 2020, N=4,812)
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 [i] psychometrics
[+0] Order effects on trolley cases persist among professional philosophers with AOS in ethics (Ojeda et al., 2022, N=387) discuss [i] 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
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
inspector

Select a link’s marker to see who asserted it, why, and what it cites.