Effects of Culture and Gender on Judgments of Intent and Responsibility

Abstract

Do different cultures hold different views of intentionality? In four studies, participants read scenarios in which the actor’s distal intent (a focus on a broader goal) and proximal intent (a focus on the mechanics of the act) were manipulated. In Studies 1–2, when distal intent was more prominent in the actor’s mind, North Americans rated the actor more responsible than did Chinese and South Asian participants. When proximal intent was more prominent, Chinese and South Asian participants, if anything, rated the actor more responsible. In Studies 3–4, when distal intent was more prominent, male Americans rated the actor more responsible than did female Americans. When proximal intent was more prominent, females rated the actor more responsible. The authors discuss these findings in relation to the literatures on moral reasoning and cultural psychology.

Proximal and Distal Intent: Toward a New Folk Theory of Intentional Action

“…Both also revealed predicted interactions with subject variables. For instance, Plaks et al (2016, Study 4) found that in the distal intent higher condition, males rated Jane more positively than did females. But in the proximal intent higher condition, females rated Jane more positively than did males.…”

“…Given well-known findings indicating that collectivists are more likely than individualists to adopt a holistic (vs. analytic) understanding of action (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001), collectivists may be the ones who focus more on the actor's broader aim (distal intent). In a recent series of studies, Plaks, Fortune, Liang, and Robinson (2016) examined which hypothesis would be best supported by the data.…”

“…In each study, Plaks et al (2016) presented members of relatively collectivist and relatively individualist cultures with scenarios that varied according to the Proximal intent × Distal intent factorial design. In one study, Canadian and Chinese undergraduates were sampled.…”

“…To address this question, Plaks and Robinson (2015) and Plaks et al (2016) conducted studies in which the actor caused a positive outcome with both forms of intent high, distal intent higher, proximal intent higher, or both low. To illustrate, in one study (Plaks & Robinson, 2015; Study 4) the Alex/Linda scenarios were altered so that Alex wishes to save Linda's life, rather than kill her.…”

“…If so, this would suggest that the PIDI framework may capture laypeople's general understanding of action. In two studies (Plaks & Robinson, 2015, Study 2; Plaks et al, 2016, Study 4), the actor (Jane) caused a positive outcome (scoring a soccer goal) with less clear-cut moral implications than taking or saving someone's life. Would participants still apply the PIDI framework in the same way?…”