Loading…

Belief Updating in Moral Dilemmas

Moral psychologists have shown that people’s past moral experiences can affect their subsequent moral decisions. One prominent finding in this line of research is that when people make a judgment about the Trolley dilemma after considering the Footbridge dilemma, they are significantly less likely t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Review of philosophy and psychology 2013-12, Vol.4 (4), p.705-714
Main Authors: Horne, Zachary, Powell, Derek, Spino, Joseph
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-2cca918709e4aa845a1d8c53d7d9ab7fe9f77f7fcd8815956f5e8d395a8c3eb73
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-2cca918709e4aa845a1d8c53d7d9ab7fe9f77f7fcd8815956f5e8d395a8c3eb73
container_end_page 714
container_issue 4
container_start_page 705
container_title Review of philosophy and psychology
container_volume 4
creator Horne, Zachary
Powell, Derek
Spino, Joseph
description Moral psychologists have shown that people’s past moral experiences can affect their subsequent moral decisions. One prominent finding in this line of research is that when people make a judgment about the Trolley dilemma after considering the Footbridge dilemma, they are significantly less likely to decide it is acceptable to redirect a train to save five people. Additionally, this ordering effect is asymmetrical, as making a judgment about the Trolley dilemma has little to no effect on people’s judgments about the Footbridge dilemma. We argue that this asymmetry is the result of a difference in how each dilemma affects people’s beliefs about the importance of saving lives. In two experiments, we show that considering the Footbridge dilemma disconfirms these beliefs, while considering the Trolley dilemma does not significantly affect them. Consistent with predictions of sequential learning models, our findings offer a clear and parsimonious account of the asymmetry in the ordering effect.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s13164-013-0159-y
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1962749714</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1962749714</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-2cca918709e4aa845a1d8c53d7d9ab7fe9f77f7fcd8815956f5e8d395a8c3eb73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWNr-AG8rnqOZzWaTHLVaFVq82HNI81G27JfJ9rD_3pQV8eLAMHN433mHB6EbIPdACH-IQKEsMAGamkk8XqAZCC4wg7K8_N2ZuEbLGI8kFZUUpJyh2ydXV85nu97qoWoPWdVm2y7oOnuuatc0Oi7Qldd1dMufOUe79cvn6g1vPl7fV48bbFL4gHNjtExBRLpCa1EwDVYYRi23Uu-5d9Jz7rk3Voj0Iys9c8JSybQw1O05naO76W4fuq-Ti4M6dqfQpkgFssx5ITkUSQWTyoQuxuC86kPV6DAqIOoMQ00wVIKhzjDUmDz55IlJ2x5c-HP5X9M3A81gaA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1962749714</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Belief Updating in Moral Dilemmas</title><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Horne, Zachary ; Powell, Derek ; Spino, Joseph</creator><creatorcontrib>Horne, Zachary ; Powell, Derek ; Spino, Joseph</creatorcontrib><description>Moral psychologists have shown that people’s past moral experiences can affect their subsequent moral decisions. One prominent finding in this line of research is that when people make a judgment about the Trolley dilemma after considering the Footbridge dilemma, they are significantly less likely to decide it is acceptable to redirect a train to save five people. Additionally, this ordering effect is asymmetrical, as making a judgment about the Trolley dilemma has little to no effect on people’s judgments about the Footbridge dilemma. We argue that this asymmetry is the result of a difference in how each dilemma affects people’s beliefs about the importance of saving lives. In two experiments, we show that considering the Footbridge dilemma disconfirms these beliefs, while considering the Trolley dilemma does not significantly affect them. Consistent with predictions of sequential learning models, our findings offer a clear and parsimonious account of the asymmetry in the ordering effect.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1878-5158</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5166</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s13164-013-0159-y</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Cognitive Psychology ; Developmental Psychology ; Education ; Epistemology ; Neurosciences ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of Mind ; Philosophy of Science</subject><ispartof>Review of philosophy and psychology, 2013-12, Vol.4 (4), p.705-714</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013</rights><rights>Review of Philosophy and Psychology is a copyright of Springer, (2013). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-2cca918709e4aa845a1d8c53d7d9ab7fe9f77f7fcd8815956f5e8d395a8c3eb73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-2cca918709e4aa845a1d8c53d7d9ab7fe9f77f7fcd8815956f5e8d395a8c3eb73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Horne, Zachary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Powell, Derek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spino, Joseph</creatorcontrib><title>Belief Updating in Moral Dilemmas</title><title>Review of philosophy and psychology</title><addtitle>Rev.Phil.Psych</addtitle><description>Moral psychologists have shown that people’s past moral experiences can affect their subsequent moral decisions. One prominent finding in this line of research is that when people make a judgment about the Trolley dilemma after considering the Footbridge dilemma, they are significantly less likely to decide it is acceptable to redirect a train to save five people. Additionally, this ordering effect is asymmetrical, as making a judgment about the Trolley dilemma has little to no effect on people’s judgments about the Footbridge dilemma. We argue that this asymmetry is the result of a difference in how each dilemma affects people’s beliefs about the importance of saving lives. In two experiments, we show that considering the Footbridge dilemma disconfirms these beliefs, while considering the Trolley dilemma does not significantly affect them. Consistent with predictions of sequential learning models, our findings offer a clear and parsimonious account of the asymmetry in the ordering effect.</description><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Developmental Psychology</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Neurosciences</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of Mind</subject><subject>Philosophy of Science</subject><issn>1878-5158</issn><issn>1878-5166</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWNr-AG8rnqOZzWaTHLVaFVq82HNI81G27JfJ9rD_3pQV8eLAMHN433mHB6EbIPdACH-IQKEsMAGamkk8XqAZCC4wg7K8_N2ZuEbLGI8kFZUUpJyh2ydXV85nu97qoWoPWdVm2y7oOnuuatc0Oi7Qldd1dMufOUe79cvn6g1vPl7fV48bbFL4gHNjtExBRLpCa1EwDVYYRi23Uu-5d9Jz7rk3Voj0Iys9c8JSybQw1O05naO76W4fuq-Ti4M6dqfQpkgFssx5ITkUSQWTyoQuxuC86kPV6DAqIOoMQ00wVIKhzjDUmDz55IlJ2x5c-HP5X9M3A81gaA</recordid><startdate>20131201</startdate><enddate>20131201</enddate><creator>Horne, Zachary</creator><creator>Powell, Derek</creator><creator>Spino, Joseph</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131201</creationdate><title>Belief Updating in Moral Dilemmas</title><author>Horne, Zachary ; Powell, Derek ; Spino, Joseph</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-2cca918709e4aa845a1d8c53d7d9ab7fe9f77f7fcd8815956f5e8d395a8c3eb73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Developmental Psychology</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Neurosciences</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of Mind</topic><topic>Philosophy of Science</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Horne, Zachary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Powell, Derek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spino, Joseph</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Review of philosophy and psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Horne, Zachary</au><au>Powell, Derek</au><au>Spino, Joseph</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Belief Updating in Moral Dilemmas</atitle><jtitle>Review of philosophy and psychology</jtitle><stitle>Rev.Phil.Psych</stitle><date>2013-12-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>705</spage><epage>714</epage><pages>705-714</pages><issn>1878-5158</issn><eissn>1878-5166</eissn><abstract>Moral psychologists have shown that people’s past moral experiences can affect their subsequent moral decisions. One prominent finding in this line of research is that when people make a judgment about the Trolley dilemma after considering the Footbridge dilemma, they are significantly less likely to decide it is acceptable to redirect a train to save five people. Additionally, this ordering effect is asymmetrical, as making a judgment about the Trolley dilemma has little to no effect on people’s judgments about the Footbridge dilemma. We argue that this asymmetry is the result of a difference in how each dilemma affects people’s beliefs about the importance of saving lives. In two experiments, we show that considering the Footbridge dilemma disconfirms these beliefs, while considering the Trolley dilemma does not significantly affect them. Consistent with predictions of sequential learning models, our findings offer a clear and parsimonious account of the asymmetry in the ordering effect.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s13164-013-0159-y</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1878-5158
ispartof Review of philosophy and psychology, 2013-12, Vol.4 (4), p.705-714
issn 1878-5158
1878-5166
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1962749714
source Springer Link
subjects Cognitive Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Education
Epistemology
Neurosciences
Philosophy
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Science
title Belief Updating in Moral Dilemmas
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T00%3A08%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Belief%20Updating%20in%20Moral%20Dilemmas&rft.jtitle=Review%20of%20philosophy%20and%20psychology&rft.au=Horne,%20Zachary&rft.date=2013-12-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=705&rft.epage=714&rft.pages=705-714&rft.issn=1878-5158&rft.eissn=1878-5166&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s13164-013-0159-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1962749714%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-2cca918709e4aa845a1d8c53d7d9ab7fe9f77f7fcd8815956f5e8d395a8c3eb73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1962749714&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true