<p>The present study embarks on a comprehensive investigation of whether the influence of the moral valence, as highlighted by Knobe, remains a predominant factor in subjects’ attributions of intentionality across diverse scenarios and populations. In addition to examining the harm dimension, our research explores the potential presence of this effect in other circumstances, assessing whether there is a comparable influence on attributions of intentionality for cases with side effects not describable as harmful. A comparative analysis between neurotypical and autistic populations is conducted –-in line with Zalla &amp; Leboyer’s work, but extending the study to other scenarios–-, revealing some disparities in how these two groups attribute intentionality and praise and blame. Final analyses were conducted on the gender variable, which revealed significant gender differences within both populations.</p>