Scholarlink

<p>To evaluate others’ actions objectively, one must integrate the actor’s mental states with the potential consequences of his actions. However, consequences can distort the perception of intentionality. The Knobe effect, or “side-effect effect,” demonstrates that individuals attribute greater intentionality to negative than positive foreseen yet unintended side effects. This study explores how reasoning styles and abilities influence these judgments. A sample of 172 college students completed validated reasoning style questionnaires, including the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI) and the Actively Open-Minded Thinking scale (AOT), a syllogistic reasoning task, and scenario-based tasks in a randomized, between-subjects design (negative vs. positive side effect). Our findings reveal that a more deliberative reasoning style and longer response times both reduce bias in attributing intentionality to negative side effects, highlighting two distinct pathways through which response times mediate the influence of reasoning style on reducing biased judgments. We explore how reasoning affects our attributions of intentionality leading to a more balanced consideration of an actor’s mental state and the consequences in moral judgment.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

How does reasoning influence intentionality attribution in the case of side effects?

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月21日

查看全文
  • Nicola Matteucci Armandi Avogli Trotti,
  • Micaela Maria Zucchelli,
  • Andrea Pavan,
  • Laura Piccardi,
  • Raffaella Nori

摘要

To evaluate others’ actions objectively, one must integrate the actor’s mental states with the potential consequences of his actions. However, consequences can distort the perception of intentionality. The Knobe effect, or “side-effect effect,” demonstrates that individuals attribute greater intentionality to negative than positive foreseen yet unintended side effects. This study explores how reasoning styles and abilities influence these judgments. A sample of 172 college students completed validated reasoning style questionnaires, including the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI) and the Actively Open-Minded Thinking scale (AOT), a syllogistic reasoning task, and scenario-based tasks in a randomized, between-subjects design (negative vs. positive side effect). Our findings reveal that a more deliberative reasoning style and longer response times both reduce bias in attributing intentionality to negative side effects, highlighting two distinct pathways through which response times mediate the influence of reasoning style on reducing biased judgments. We explore how reasoning affects our attributions of intentionality leading to a more balanced consideration of an actor’s mental state and the consequences in moral judgment.