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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Review of philosophy and psychology 2013-12, Vol.4 (4), p.705-714 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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 |