People frequently label harmful (but not helpful) side effects as intentional. One proposed explanation for this asymmetry is that moral considerations fundamentally affect how people think about and apply the concept of intentional action. We propose something else: People interpret the meaning of questions about intentionally harming versus helping in fundamentally different ways. Four experiments substantially support this hypothesis. When presented with helpful (but not harmful) side effects, people interpret questions concerning intentional helping as literally asking whether helping is the agents’ intentional action or believe questions are asking about why agents acted. Presented with harmful (but not helpful) side effects, people interpret the question as asking whether agents intentionally acted, knowing this would lead to harm. Differences in participants’ definitions consistently helped to explain intentionality responses. These findings cast doubt on whether side-effect intentionality asymmetries are informative regarding people’s core understanding and application of the concept of intentional action.
AdamsF.SteadmanA. (2007). Folk concepts, surveys, and intentional action. In LumerC.NanniniS. (Eds.), Intentionality, deliberation, and autonomy: The action-theoretic basis of practical philosophy (pp. 17–33). Ashgate Publishing.
CovaF.LantianA.BoudesseulJ. (2016). Can the Knobe effect be explained away? Methodological controversies in the study of the relationship between intentionality and morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(10), 1295–1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216656356
7.
CovaF.NaarH. (2012). Side-effect effect without side effects: The pervasive impact of moral considerations on judgments of intentionality. Philosophical Psychology, 25(6), 837–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.622363
8.
CushmanF.MeleA. (2008). Intentional action: Two-and-a-half folk concepts? In KnobeJ.NicholsS. (Eds.), Experimental philosophy (pp. 171–188). Oxford University Press.
9.
DarleyJ. M.PittmanT. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_05
GarnerB. A. (2014). Black’s law dictionary (10th ed.). West Publishing.
12.
GuglielmoS.MalleB. F. (2010). Can unintended side effects be intentional? Resolving a controversy over intentionality and morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1635–1647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386733
13.
GuglielmoS.MalleB. F. (2019). Asymmetric morality: Blame is more differentiated and more extreme than praise. PLOS ONE, 14(3), Article e0213544. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213544
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
16.
Janoff-BulmanR.SheikhS.HeppS. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013779
KnobeJ.MendlowG. S. (2004). The good, the bad and the blameworthy: Understanding the role of evaluative reasoning in folk psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 24(2), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091246
20.
LanteriA. (2012). Three-and-a-half folk concepts of intentional action. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 158, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41406995
LaurentS. M.ClarkB. A. M.SchweitzerK. A. (2015). Why side-effect outcomes do not affect intuitions about intentional actions: Properly shifting the focus from intentional outcomes back to intentional actions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000011
23.
LaurentS. M.NuñezN. L.SchweitzerK. A. (2015). The influence of desire and knowledge on perception of each other and related mental states, and different mechanisms for blame. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.009
24.
LaurentS. M.NuñezN. L.SchweitzerK. A. (2016). Unintended, but still blameworthy: The roles of awareness, desire, and anger in negligence, restitution, and punishment. Cognition and Emotion, 30(7), 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1058242
25.
LaurentS. M.ReichB. J.SkorinkoJ. L. M. (2019). Reconstructing the side-effect effect: A new way of understanding how moral considerations drive intentionality asymmetries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 1747–1766. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000554
MalleB. F. (2006). Intentionality, morality, and their relationship in human judgment. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853706776931358
MalleB. F.HolbrookJ. (2012). Is there a hierarchy of social inferences? The likelihood and speed of inferring intentionality, mind, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 661–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026790
30.
MalleB. F.KnobeJ. (1997a). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1006/JESP.1996.1314
31.
MalleB. F.KnobeJ. (1997b). Which behaviors do people explain? A basic actor–observer asymmetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.288
32.
MalleB. F.MosesL. J.BaldwinD. A. (2001). Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition. MIT Press.
NadelhofferT. (2006). Desire, foresight, intentions, and intentional actions: Probing folk intuitions. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6(1), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853706776931259
NuñezN.LaurentS.GrayJ. M. (2014). Is negligence a first cousin to intentionality? Lay conceptions of negligence and its relationship to intentionality. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2957
RoyzmanE.HaganJ. P. (2017). The shadow and the tree: Inference and transformation of cognitive content in psychology of moral judgment. In BonnefonJ.-F.TrémolièreB. (Eds.), Moral inferences: Current issues in thinking and reasoning (pp. 56–74). Routledge.
40.
ShepherdJ. (2012). Action, attitude, and the Knobe effect: Another asymmetry. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-011-0079-7
VaishA.CarpenterM.TomaselloM. (2010). Young children selectively avoid helping people with harmful intentions. Child Development, 81(6), 1661–1669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01500.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
