People and societies seek to combat harmful events. However, because resources are limited, every wrong righted leaves another wrong left unchecked. Responses must therefore be calibrated to the magnitude of the harm. One underappreciated factor that affects this calibration may be people’s oversensitivity to intent. Across a series of studies, people saw intended harms as worse than unintended harms, even though the two harms were identical. This harm-magnification effect occurred for both subjective and monetary estimates of harm, and it remained when participants were given incentives to be accurate. The effect was fully mediated by blame motivation. People may therefore focus on intentional harms to the neglect of unintentional (but equally damaging) harms.
AlickeM. D. (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 368–378.
2.
AlickeM. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556–574.
3.
AlickeM. D.DavisT. L. (1990). Capacity responsibility in social evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 465–474.
4.
BlantonH.JaccardJ. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 27–41.
5.
BorgidaE.FiskeS. T. (2008). Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
6.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
7.
CohenM. A. (1988). Corporate crime and punishment: A study of social harm and sentencing practice in the Federal Courts, 1984-1987. American Criminal Law Review, 26, 605–660.
8.
DarleyJ. M.HuffC. W. (1990). Heightened damage assessment as a result of the intentionality of the damage-causing act. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 181–188.
9.
DarleyJ. M.PittmanT. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 324–336.
10.
DittoP. H.BoardmanA. F. (1995). Perceived accuracy of favorable and unfavorable psychological feedback. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 137–157.
11.
DittoP. H.PizarroD. A.TannenbaumD. (2009). Motivated moral reasoning. In RossB. H. (Series Ed.) & BartelsD. M.BaumanC. W.SkitkaL. J.MedinD. L. (Vol. Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 50. Moral judgment and decision making (pp. 307–338). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12.
DunningD.LeuenbergerA.ShermanD. A. (1995). A new look at motivated inference: Are self-serving theories of success a product of motivational forces?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 58–68.
13.
FiskeS. T. (1989). Examining the role of intent: Toward understanding its role in stereotyping and prejudice. In UlemanJ.BarghJ. (Eds.), Unintended thought: The limits of awareness, intention, and control (pp. 253–283). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14.
GebotysR.DasguptaB. (1987). Attribution of responsibility and crime seriousness. The Journal of Psychology, 121, 607–613.
15.
GilbertD. (2011). Buried by bad decisions. Nature, 474, 275–277.
16.
GollwitzerM.RothmundT. (2009). When the need to trust results in unethical behavior: The Sensitivity to Mean Intentions (SeMI) model. In De CremerD. (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 135–152). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
17.
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2008). The sting of intentional pain. Psychological Science, 19, 1260–1262.
18.
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2010). Blaming God for our pain: Human suffering and the divine mind. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 7–16.
19.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.
20.
HaidtJ.KesebirS. (2010). Morality. In FiskeS.GilbertD.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 797–832). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
21.
HoffmanE.McCabeK.SmithV. (1998). Behavioral foundations of reciprocity: Experimental economics and evolutionary psychology. Economic Inquiry, 36, 335–352.
22.
KnobeJ. (2003). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63, 190–193.
23.
KnobeJ.BuckwalterW.NicholsS.RobbinsP.SarkissianH.SommersT. (2012). Experimental philosophy. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 81–99.
24.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
25.
KurzbanR.NeubergL. (2005). Managing in-group and out-group relationships. In BussD. (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 653–675). New York, NY: Wiley.
26.
LernerM. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of performer’s reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 415–419.
27.
LoftusE. F. (1997). Creating false memories. Scientific American, 277, 70–75.
28.
MasonW.SuriS. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23.
29.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.
30.
PizarroD. A.LaneyC.MorrisE. K.LoftusE. F. (2006). Ripple effects in memory: Judgments of moral blame can distort memory for events. Memory & Cognition, 34, 550–555.
31.
PyszczynskiT.GreenbergJ. (1987). Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 297–340). New York, NY: Academic Press.
32.
RobinsonP. H.DarleyJ. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame: Community views and the criminal law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
33.
RothmundT.GollwitzerM.KlimmtC. (2011). Of virtual victims and victimized virtues: Differential effects of experienced aggression in video games on social cooperation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 107–119.
34.
ShaverK. G. (1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101–113.
35.
YoungL.SaxeR. (2009). An fMRI investigation of spontaneous mental state inference for moral judgment. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1396–1405.
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.
