The philpapers survey recently released new data (http://philpapers.org/surveys/). The survey includes a big sample of selected philosophy faculty as well self-selected phd-students, philosophy students and others. Among the questions are what one's normative ethics is and if one would switch in the trolley problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem. The correlations aren't terribly strong, but still interesting.

Trolley problem:don't switch gender:female 0.135
Trolley problem:switch gender:male 0.135
Normative ethics:consequentialism affil:region:Australasia 0.138
Normative ethics:deontology phd_region:United States 0.132
Normative ethics:deontology nationality_region:United States 0.124
Trolley problem:switch tradition:analytic 0.176
Normative ethics:consequentialism not affil:region:United States 0.091

Note that in Australasia 20/26 phd-students were consequentialists whereas only 1/3 of phds outside Australasia were consequentialists. Can this be attributed to a Singer effect, some even earlier philosophical influence or australian culture/personality?

The factor analysis fouond the four relatively easily labeled factors naturalism, realism, rationalism, and externalism, as well as a fith factor roughly corresponding to anti-realism related to an epistemic view of truth.
Another interesting result in the factor analysis is a factor strongly correlated with two-boxing Newcomb's problem, which is also correlated with believing in classical logic, knowledge invariantism and belief in platonist abstract objects.

Is this the original switch-flipping-to-trade-5-for-1 problem?

Yes.