Evidence Relationship: Supports
Vote on whether "A 2023 direct replication of Ojeda et al. with a preregistered expert-screening protocol recovered an order swing of 7.4 points" is good evidence that supports the claim "Order effects on trolley cases persist among professional philosophers with AOS in ethics (Ojeda et al., 2022, N=387)"
Evidence Claim
A 2023 direct replication of Ojeda et al. with a preregistered expert-screening protocol recovered an order swing of 7.4 points
Kwan and Petrossian recruited 214 philosophers who had published at least one peer-reviewed paper engaging trolley cases, screened via publication records rather than conference attendance. The order effect shrank but remained significant (7.4 points, 95% CI [2.1, 12.7]). A prespecified subgroup of 41 authors of book-length treatments showed a non-significant 3.1-point swing.
Main Claim
Order effects on trolley cases persist among professional philosophers with AOS in ethics (Ojeda et al., 2022, N=387)
A sample recruited from ethics conference registration lists showed an order-induced swing of 9 percentage points on Footbridge endorsement, smaller than the lay swing of 12 points but statistically robust (p=0.004). Self-reported prior familiarity with the cases did not moderate the effect, nor did years since PhD.
Log in to join the discussion.
n=41 with a CI that surely spans zero in both directions. Honest of them to report it rather than bury it, but nobody should be citing that subgroup as a result.
CI was [-4.8, 11.0]. We said explicitly it is hypothesis-generating. It has of course been cited as a result anyway.