Cognition 203:104397 (2020)

Authors
Bradford Cokelet
University of Kansas
Eric Schwitzgebel
University of California, Riverside
Abstract
Do university ethics classes influence students’ real-world moral choices? We aimed to conduct the first controlled study of the effects of ordinary philosophical ethics classes on real-world moral choices, using non-self-report, non-laboratory behavior as the dependent measure. We assigned 1332 students in four large philosophy classes to either an experimental group on the ethics of eating meat or a control group on the ethics of charitable giving. Students in each group read a philosophy article on their assigned topic and optionally viewed a related video, then met with teaching assistants for 50-minute group discussion sections. They expressed their opinions about meat ethics and charitable giving in a follow-up questionnaire (1032 respondents after exclusions). We obtained 13,642 food purchase receipts from campus restaurants for 495 of the students, before and after the intervention. Purchase of meat products declined in the experimental group (52% of purchases of at least $4.99 contained meat before the intervention, compared to 45% after) but remained the same in the control group (52% both before and after). Ethical opinion also differed, with 43% of students in the experimental group agreeing that eating the meat of factory farmed animals is unethical compared to 29% in the control group. We also attempted to measure food choice using vouchers, but voucher redemption rates were low and no effect was statistically detectable. It remains unclear what aspect of instruction influenced behavior.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104397
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Animal Liberation.Peter Singer (ed.) - 1977 - Avon Books.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.

View all 22 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Harnessing Moral Psychology to Reduce Meat Consumption.Joshua May & Victor Kumar - forthcoming - Journal of the American Philosophical Association.
The Development of a Case-Based Course on Global Engineering Ethics in China.Rockwell F. Clancy - 2021 - International Journal of Ethics Education 6 (1):51-73.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Epistemology of Meat Eating.C. E. Abbate - 2021 - Social Epistemology 35 (1):67-84.
The Ethics of Eating Meat.David Sobel - 2017 - Philosophic Exchange 46 (1).
Is Eating Meat Ethical?Thom Brooks - 2017 - Think 16 (47):9-13.
In Defense of Eating Vegan.Stijn Bruers - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (4):705-717.
The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat.Ben Bramble & Bob Fischer (eds.) - 2015 - Oxford University Press.
On Eating Animals: Michael B. Gill.Michael B. Gill - 2013 - Social Philosophy and Policy 30 (1-2):201-207.
Fake Meat.William O. Stephens - 2018 - Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics.
Using Live Cases to Teach Ethics.Victoria McWilliams & Afsaneh Nahavandi - 2006 - Journal of Business Ethics 67 (4):421-433.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-07-26

Total views
245 ( #44,972 of 2,504,871 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
65 ( #12,545 of 2,504,871 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes