Causal deviance and the ascription of intent and blame

Rogers, Ross; Alicke, Mark D.; Taylor, Sarah G.; Rosé, David; Davis, Teresa L.; Bloom, Dori

doi:10.1080/09515089.2018.1564025

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Responsibility attribution is central to “everyday reasoning” and is so compelling a concept that people even invent responsibility where none exists (Iyengar, 1994, p. 9). Blame tends to be associated with events that are seen as intentional and also where the outcomes of the action are foreseeable (Alicke, 2000; Ames & Fiske, 2015; R. Rogers et al, 2019).…”

Section: Covid-19 “Origin Beliefs” and Blame Attributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framing the Origins of COVID-19

Bolsen

Palm

Kingsland

2020

Science Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conspiracy theories have flourished about the origins of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes an acute respiratory syndrome (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) in humans. This article reports the results from a study that evaluates the impact of exposure to framed messages about the origins of COVID-19. We tested four hypotheses: two focusing on its origins as either zoonotic or human-engineered and two concerning the impacts of origin beliefs on the desire to penalize China or support increased funding for biomedical research. The results accentuate the importance of finding ways to combat the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories related to this global pandemic.

show abstract

Section: Covid-19 “Origin Beliefs” and Blame Attributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framing the Origins of COVID-19

Bolsen

Palm

Kingsland

2020

Science Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some theorists argue that these effects result from people’s tendency to blame agents (Alicke, 1992; Alicke, Mandel, Hilton, Gerstenberg, & Lagnado, 2015; Alicke, Rose, & Bloom, 2011; Rogers et al, 2019; Shaver, 1985). On these views, people’s desire to blame a person biases their causal judgments (Alicke, 1992; Rogers et al, 2019). Someone who violates a norm is more blameworthy than someone who does not, and this desire to blame such an individual makes people more inclined to identify the actions of that individual as the cause of the outcome.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only modal explanations, however, predict that they should. On social cognition views, people align their causal judgments with their desire to blame the source of their reactions (Alicke, 1992; Rogers et al, 2019). So, if the undesirable outcome has not yet occurred, then there is no reaction that motivates the alignment of a causal judgment with their desire to blame.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Norms Affect Prospective Causal Judgments

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People more frequently select norm‐violating factors, relative to norm‐conforming ones, as the cause of some outcome. Until recently, this abnormal‐selection effect has been studied using retrospective vignette‐based paradigms. We use a novel set of video stimuli to investigate this effect for prospective causal judgments—that is, judgments about the cause of some future outcome. Four experiments show that people more frequently select norm‐violating factors, relative to norm‐conforming ones, as the cause of some future outcome. We show that the abnormal‐selection effects are not primarily explained by the perception of agency (Experiment 4). We discuss these results in relation to recent efforts to model causal judgment.

show abstract

“…There are several explanations for why people select norm-violating factors as causes. Some theorists argue that these effects result from people's tendency to blame agents (Alicke, 1992;Alicke, Rose, & Bloom, 2011;Alicke et al, 2015;Rogers et al, 2019;Shaver, 1985). On these views, people's desire to blame a person biases their causal judgments (Alicke, 1992;Rogers et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some theorists argue that these effects result from people's tendency to blame agents (Alicke, 1992;Alicke, Rose, & Bloom, 2011;Alicke et al, 2015;Rogers et al, 2019;Shaver, 1985). On these views, people's desire to blame a person biases their causal judgments (Alicke, 1992;Rogers et al, 2019). Someone who violates a norm is more blameworthy than someone who does not, and this desire to blame such an individual makes people more inclined to identify the actions of that individual as the cause of the outcome.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Norms Affect Prospective Causal Judgments

Henne¹,

O’Neill²,

Bello³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People more frequently select norm-violating factors, relative to norm- conforming ones, as the cause of some outcome. Until recently, this abnormal-selection effect has been studied using only retrospective vignette-based paradigms. In within-participants designs, we use a novel set of videos to investigate this effect for prospective causal judgments—i.e., judgments about the cause of some future outcome. Three experiments show that people more frequently select norm-violating factors, relative to norm-conforming ones, as the cause of some future outcome. We discuss these results in relation to recent efforts to model causal judgment.

show abstract

Causal deviance and the ascription of intent and blame

Cited by 21 publications

References 39 publications

Framing the Origins of COVID-19

Framing the Origins of COVID-19

Norms Affect Prospective Causal Judgments

Norms Affect Prospective Causal Judgments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About