Significant main effect of entity x*(44) = 43,250, p < .001, and significant interaction between specie and charity, x°(132) = 593, D < .001. EEMs for the probability of saving each family across the four charity conditions: Humans had the highest average probability; mammals also received high support; birds and plants showed more variability. Insects and others consistently showed lower probabilities of being saved.
Entity Distance Matrix (Ordered by Save Probability)
Study 1. Profiles - From Response Times and probabilities to Moral Maps Non-donors (baseline): Humans were strongly prioritized (0.91), but little variation across other families, insects (0.20) the lowest. Global Health and Wellbeing Fund: Humans again led (0.93), with mammals (0.65) and plants (0.34) in the middle, and insects (0.20). Founders Pledge Climate Change Fund: Humans led similarly as animal adv. (0.90), while plants saw relatively higher support (0.38) than in other charities, and insects remained low (0.22). Effective Animal Advocacy Fund: Humans again led (o.86), but a more balance support across mammals (0.67), birds (0.57), and especially insects (0.19). One dimension 'distance' predicts likelihood of saving a species. 0.91> R° > 0.94
Study 2. Goal Framing and Choice History
What can we learn about people's #MoralCircle using dilemmas about who to save?
Daniel Martin et al. showed really nice plots of reaction times, similarity scores, and choice changes.
Follow Daniel via @researchgate.bsky.social: www.researchgate.net/profile/Dani...
#bioethics #appliedEthics #xPhi
