Evidence Relationship: Opposes
Vote on whether "Moral intuitions show convergent validity across independently constructed case sets at r=0.58, comparable to convergence across perceptual modalities" is good evidence that opposes the claim "Framing sensitivity of comparable magnitude affects perceptual judgments that nobody treats as evidentially worthless"
Evidence Claim
Moral intuitions show convergent validity across independently constructed case sets at r=0.58, comparable to convergence across perceptual modalities
Kwan (2023) constructed two non-overlapping batteries of 40 moral cases each, generated by separate teams blind to one another's items and sharing no surface features. Individual-level correlation of aggregate permissiveness scores across batteries was r=0.58 (N=2,210), similar to the r=0.55 typically observed between visual and haptic size estimation in the same individuals.
Main Claim
Framing sensitivity of comparable magnitude affects perceptual judgments that nobody treats as evidentially worthless
Aurbach (2020) measured order and context effects in psychophysical line-length and color-boundary judgments under conditions matched to typical vignette studies, finding shifts of 12-24% in reported categorizations — the same range as trolley framing effects. Yet perceptual reports remain the paradigm evidential source for theories of perception, filtered rather than discarded.
Log in to join the discussion.
Did you partial out acquiescence bias and a general risk-tolerance measure? Those alone could plausibly carry a good chunk of an r of 0.58.
Acquiescence yes, drops to 0.51. Risk tolerance was not measured, which I regard as the main hole in the study.