Link Search Menu Expand Document

Framing Effects: Emotion and Order of Presentation

Rini (2013) and Sinnott-Armstrong (2008) use evidence of framing effects to argue against relying on noninferentially justified judgements. These arguments appear attractive: if successful, they establish a dramatic conclusion without requiring much understanding of the processes underpinning judgements. But are they successful?

This recording is also available on stream (no ads; search enabled). Or you can view just the slides (no audio or video). You should not watch the recording this year, it’s all happening live (advice).

If the video isn’t working you could also watch it on youtube. Or you can view just the slides (no audio or video). You should not watch the recording this year, it’s all happening live (advice).

If the slides are not working, or you prefer them full screen, please try this link.

The recording is available on stream and youtube.

Notes

Can Ethical Judgements be Noninferentially Justified?

Some philosophers rely on ethical premises for which there is no inferential justification (the premises are not inferred from known ethical principles, for example; nor from observations about patterns of judgements or theories about the causes of judgements). For instance, as we saw in Thomson’s Other Method of Trolley Cases, Thomson (1976) relies without inferential justification on the premise that there is a morally relevant difference between David and Edward.

Sinnott-Armstrong attempts to use framing effects to establish that:

‘no moral intuitions are justified noninferentially’ (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2008a, p. 74)

The core of his argument (as I understand it) is this:

‘Evidence of framing effects makes it reasonable for informed moral believers to assign a large probability of error to moral intuitions in general and then to apply that probability to a particular moral intuition until they have some special reason to believe that the particular moral intuition is in a different class with a smaller probability of error’ (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2008b, p. 99).

Note that moral intuitions include Thomson’s carefully considered judgement that there is a morally relevant difference between David and Edward. As we use the term on this course, what makes something one of your moral intuitions is that you accept it independently of having any inferential justification for it. Understood in this way, it is consistent to say that some claims become moral intutions only after careful consideration.

Further support for the claim that ‘no moral intuitions are justified noninferentially’ comes from Rini (2013). She describes her conclusion as ‘very similar’ (p. 266) to Sinnott-Armstrong (2008b)’s. But whereas Sinnott-Armstrong argues that framing effects prevent us from knowing ethical judgements which are not inferentially justified, Rini argues that framing effects prevent philosophers from knowing whether their noninferentially justified judgements are sensitive only to ethically relevant factors.[1]

Is Sinnott-Armstrong (2008a)’s or Rini (2013)’s argument successful?

Does the evidence of framing effects successfully undermine the view that, as things stand, philosophers’ noninferentially justified ethical judgements can yield knowledge?

What Is a Framing Effect?

Suppose you are asked to judge whether an object is near or far from you. You might be surprised to discover that your judgements can be influenced by whether another person is in the scene and able to interact with the object (Fini, Brass, & Committeri, 2015). After all, the judgement you are making is supposed to be about the distance between you and an object; the distance from another person and that person’s ability to interact with the object are irrelevant considerations.

This an example of a framing effect: task-irrelevant features of a situation systematically influence your performance.

Are Philosophers Subject To Framing Effects When Considering Ethical Scenarios?

Schwitzgebel & Cushman (2015) show that philosophers (and non-philosophers) are subject to order-of-presentation effects (they make different judgements depending on which order trolley scenarios are presented).

Wiegmann, Horvath, & Meyer (2020) show that philosophers are subject to irrelevant additional options: like non-philosophers, philosophers will more readily endorsing killing one person to save nine when given five alternatives than when given six alternatives. (These authors also demonstrate order-of-presentation effects.)

Wiegmann & Horvath (2020) show that philosophers are subject to the ‘Asian disease’ framing used in a famous earlier study (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). (They also find an indication that philosophers, although susceptible to other framing effects, may be less susceptible than non-philosophers to four other framing effects, including whether an outcome is presented as a loss or a gain (which they term ‘Focus’).)

Emotion

The emotional state of a philosopher making an ethical judgement is surely a morally irrelevant factor. That is, how morally bad an action is cannot plausibly depend on how you, as a bystander with narrowly philosophical concerns, feel about it.

There is evidence that your feelings can influence your judgements (as we saw in PS: Does emotion influence moral judgment or merely motivate morally relevant action?).

Does this evidence support Rini’s and Sinnott-Armstrong’s challenge to the view that, as things stand, philosophers’ noninferentially justified ethical judgements can yield knowledge?

Suppose you discovered that your emotions can influence your judgements about how far away something was. The sadder you feel, the further rewards seem and the closer threats seem.[2] Under what circumstances would this imply that you could not gain knowledge on the basis of noninferentially justified judgements concerning distance?

Or, alternatively, suppose that you discovered that your judgements about an object’s market value were strongly influenced by your feelings about the object, irrespective of where these feelings had any bearing on its market value. Under what circumstances would this imply that you could not gain knowledge on the basis of noninferentially justified judgements concerning market value?

These are difficult questions to answer. More information is needed. We need to know, for instance, how strong the effects on judgement are; how the emotions interact with other factors affecting judgements; and whether emotions sometimes or never play a role in improving the accuracy of judgements.

Order-of-Presentation

The order in which a philosopher considers scenarios is surely a morally irrelevant factor. That is, how morally bad an action is cannot plausibly depend on in which order you, a bystander with narrowly philosophical concerns, consider it.

Philosophers’ ethical judgements about scenarios are influenced by order-of-presentation effects (Schwitzgebel & Cushman, 2015; Wiegmann et al., 2020).

Does this evidence support Rini’s and Sinnott-Armstrong’s challenge to the view that, as things stand, philosophers’ noninferentially justified moral judgements can yield knowledge?

The answer may depend in part on why there are order-of-presentation effects. Wiegmann & Waldmann (2014) offer evidence for the theory that this effect is a consequence of one scenario selectively highlighting an aspect of the causal structure of another scenario. It is possible that, rather than undermining the use of noninferentially justified judgements, Thomson might regard her approach as vindicated. By contrasting the dilemmas, she has identified a morally-relevant difference.

The Significance of Framing Effects

What do framing effects show? According to Kahneman (2013), there are some instances in which

‘there is no underlying preference that is masked or distorted by the frame. Our preferences are about framed problems, and our moral intuitions are about descriptions, not about substance’ (Kahneman, 2013).

If also true in cases of ethical judgement, this would clearly support Rini’s and Sinnott-Armstrong’s challenge to the view that, as things stand, philosophers’ noninferentially justified ethical judgements can yield knowledge.[3] But as far as I know, we do not have sufficient evidence to support Kahneman’s claim either way.

Another possibility is that framing effects are not too difficult for philosophers and others to work around. Perhaps ordinary philosophical approaches are already enough to limit the effects of framing. Or perhaps philosophers can make use of discoveries about particular framing effects to avoid them. But as far as I know, we do not know enough to determine whether this is true.

How could we make progress? One suggestion is not to treat framing effects concerning ethical judgements in isolation. I suggest that framing effects on judgements about moral scenarios have much the same epistemic and normative significance as framing effects on judgements about distance or monetary value.

Conclusion

An argument from framing effects against relying on noninferentially justified judgements initially appeared attractive. It appeared to offer a dramatic conclusion while requiring no very deep understanding of the processes underpinning judgements.

I am unable to find a convincing argument which relies on evidence of framing effects alone for Rini’s and Sinnott-Armstrong’s challenge. Wiegmann & Horvath (2020)’s finding that ‘expert ethicists have a genuine advantage over laypeople with respect to some well-known biases’ suggests that we may not know whether the consequences of framing effects on philosophers are extensive enough to undermine claims to knowledge on the basis of noninferentially justified judgements.

Next Steps

When we look beyond framing effects we may find alternative grounds to challenge the view that philosophers’ noninferentially justified ethical judgements can yield knowledge.

In considering framing effects, we are focussing on individual factors which influence judgements in isolation from each other. To make progress we need a deeper understanding of the causes of ethical judgements.

PS: Relation to Thomson (1976)

In Thomson’s Other Method of Trolley Cases we saw one way in which discoveries in moral psychology might undermine or support ethical principles if Thomson’s approach is correct.

Are the discoveries about framing effects sufficient to undermine or support ethical principles if we adopt Thomson’s approach? The Conclusion just above implies that we do not yet know.

This is not to say that we have vindicated Thomson’s method of trolley cases, nor reliance on noninferentially justified judgements more generally. We cannot rule out the possibility that Kahneman (2013) is right that if we could remove framing effects entirely there would be nothing which noninferentially justified judgements (however reflective) are about.

Ask a Question

Your question will normally be answered in the question session of the next lecture.

More information about asking questions.

Glossary

Asian disease : A disease will kill 600 people for sure without an intervention. You are a decision maker tasked with choosing between two intervensions. Your choice can be framed in two ways. Frame 1: Either save 200 people for sure, or else take a one in three chance that everyone will be saved with a two in three chance that no one will be saved. Frame 2: Either allow 400 people to die for sure, or else take a one in three chance that nobody will die and a two in three chance that everyone will die. (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981)
David : ‘David is a great transplant surgeon. Five of his patients need new parts—one needs a heart, the others need, respectively, liver, stomach, spleen, and spinal cord—but all are of the same, relatively rare, blood-type. By chance, David learns of a healthy specimen with that very blood-type. David can take the healthy specimen's parts, killing him, and install them in his patients, saving them. Or he can refrain from taking the healthy specimen's parts, letting his patients die’ (Thomson, 1976, p. 206).
Edward : ‘Edward is the driver of a trolley, whose brakes have just failed. On the track ahead of him are five people; the banks are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time. The track has a spur leading off to the right, and Edward can turn the trolley onto it. Unfortunately there is one person on the right-hand track. Edward can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley, killing the five’ (Thomson, 1976, p. 206).
Frank : ‘Frank is a passenger on a trolley whose driver has just shouted that the trolley's brakes have failed, and who then died of the shock. On the track ahead are five people; the banks are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time. The track has a spur leading off to the right, and Frank can turn the trolley onto it. Unfortunately there is one person on the right-hand track. Frank can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley, letting the five die’ (Thomson, 1976, p. 207).
moral intuition : According to this lecturer, a person’s intuitions are the claims they take to be true independently of whether those claims are justified inferentially. And a person’s moral intuitions are simply those of their intuitions that concern ethical matters.
According to Sinnott-Armstrong, Young, & Cushman (2010, p. 256), moral intuitions are ‘strong, stable, immediate moral beliefs.’

References

Dreisbach, S., & Guevara, D. (2019). The Asian Disease Problem and the Ethical Implications Of Prospect Theory. Noûs, 53(3), 613–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12227
Fini, C., Brass, M., & Committeri, G. (2015). Social scaling of extrapersonal space: Target objects are judged as closer when the reference frame is a human agent with available movement potentialities. Cognition, 134, 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.014
Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus; Giroux.
Rini, R. A. (2013). Making psychology normatively significant. The Journal of Ethics, 17(3), 257–274.
Rini, R. A. (2017). Why moral psychology is disturbing. Philosophical Studies, 174(6), 1439–1458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0766-4
Schwitzgebel, E., & Cushman, F. (2015). Philosophers’ biased judgments persist despite training, expertise and reflection. Cognition, 141, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.015
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2008a). Framing Moral Intuitions. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology: Intuition and diversity. The cognitive science of morality (Vol. 2, pp. 47–76). Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2008b). Reply to tolhurst and shafer-landau. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology: Intuition and diversity. The cognitive science of morality (Vol. 2, pp. 97–105). Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Young, L., & Cushman, F. (2010). Moral intuitions. In J. M. Doris, M. P. R. Group, & others (Eds.), The moral psychology handbook (pp. 246–272). Oxford: OUP.
Thomson, J. J. (1976). Killing, Letting Die, and The Trolley Problem. The Monist, 59(2), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197659224
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
Waldmann, M. R., Nagel, J., & Wiegmann, A. (2012). Moral Judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 274–299). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0019
Wiegmann, A., & Horvath, J. (2020). Intuitive Expertise in Moral Judgements. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5grsq
Wiegmann, A., Horvath, J., & Meyer, K. (2020). Intuitive expertise and irrelevant options. Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, 3, 275–310.
Wiegmann, A., & Waldmann, M. R. (2014). Transfer effects between moral dilemmas: A causal model theory. Cognition, 131(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.004

Endnotes

  1. See Rini (2013, p. 265): ‘Our moral judgments are apparently sensitive to idiosyncratic factors, which cannot plausibly appear as the basis of an interpersonal normative standard. [...] we are not in a position to introspectively isolate and abstract away from these factors. Worse yet, even when we think that we have achieved normative abstraction, we may only erroneously conclude that we have succeeded.’ ↩︎

  2. Although this is untrue, as far as I know, there are framing effects on judgements of distance; for example, Fini et al., 2015. ↩︎

  3. I am not suggesting that this is the only way to defend Rini’s and Sinnott-Armstrong’s challenge. Perhaps the challenge can be upheld even if this is not true in cases of ethical judgement. ↩︎