This study follows up on a [previous study][1]. <br> MATERIALS **Scenario one** A patient has an incurable illness that affects muscles and tendons. The illness is not life-threatening and the patient does not feel any significant pain. However, he can move his limbs only with great difficulty and feels enormous fatigue all the time. He feels that his life has no meaning anymore and concludes that there is no point in continuing living like this. In this case, would it be morally right, upon request from the patient, for the doctor to administer intravenous drugs, such as potassium chloride, to intentionally end the patient’s life? 1 - completely morally wrong … 6 - completely morally right **Scenario two** A patient has an incurable metastatic cancer, which invades the bones and causes excruciating pain. Current levels of morphine, nerve blocks, and other treatments are failing to control the pain. Doctors expect the patient to live for no more than four months. In this case, would it be morally right, upon request from the patient, for the doctor to administer intravenous drugs, such as potassium chloride, to intentionally end the patient’s life? 1 - completely morally wrong … 6 - completely morally right **Legalisation of euthanasia** Do you believe that voluntary euthanasia should be legal? 1 - definitely should be illegal … 5 - definitely should be legal <br> DESIGN AND HYPOTHESIS Participants will be divided in five groups. The first two groups will be given one of the two scenarios first and the other one afterwards. Finally, they will answer the question about whether euthanasia should be legal. The two other groups will be given just one of the scenarios and answer the question about whether euthanasia should be legal afterwards. The final group will be given only the question about whether euthanasia should be legal. The experiment aims to replicate the result found in the [previous study][1], which showed that people are more likely to answer that euthanasia should be legal if they are given Scenario one (fatigue) first and Scenario two (cancer) second than if the order is reversed. Furthermore, the comparison between the groups given one scenario and groups given both scenarios should help to elucidate what process drove the effect in the previous study: One possibility is that people form their perception of euthanasia from the presented scenarios and the last one they see influences their perception the most. If that was the case, we would expect that the participants given only one scenario would show the same or even a larger effect of the scenario presented just before answering the legality question than participants given both scenarios. On the other hand, seeing two scenarios and being able to compare them to each other may lead to a contrast effect, that influences both the evaluation of the second scenario and the answer to the legality question in the direction of the difference between wrongness of the first and the second presented scenario. For example, seeing a more morally wrong scenario after a less wrong one will lead to greater condemnation of the second scenario than if it was presented without the preceding one. The legality question is then answered in line with the greater condemnation of the last scenario. This could be caused by participants wanting to use the morality scale consistently when answering question about morality of euthanasia in the two scenarios and not being able to easily map their attitudes when answering the question for the first time. For example, when they are given the cancer scenario as second, their answers tend to be shifted towards "completely morally right" because their possible answers are limited by the answer to the fatigue scenario in which euthanasia is perceived as less moral. Alternatively, the difference between two scenarios could really make the evaluation of the second one more pronounced, regardless of the used scale. The group given only the legality question serves as a control group which will be used to show which scenarios influence the legality answers and in which direction. We will use the answer to the question about whether euthanasia should be legal as a primary dependent variable. <br><br> PARTICIPANTS We will put a HIT on mTurk for 800 workers. [1]: https://osf.io/qgmzc/