Identification, situational constraint, and social cognition: Studies in the attribution of moral responsibility

Benefiting from misfortune: When harmless actions are judged to be morally blameworthy

“…We know, for instance, that an action is judged more wrong and blameworthy when the agent desires to cause harm (Cushman, 2008;Pizarro, Uhlman, & Salovey, 2003;Woolfolk, Doris & Darley, 2006). However, "desire" in this sense is more centrally tied to the notion of intent, and as such plays a role that is perfectly consistent with standard models of moral blame, on which intent to cause harm is a critical feature of a blameworthy action.…”

Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments

“…Normal moral judgment often represents a response to a constellation of features, including not only the agent's beliefs but the agent's desires (15), the magnitude of the consequences (16,17), the agent's prior record (18), the means used by the agent to cause the harm (17,19), the external constraints on the agent (e.g., coercion, self-defense) (20), and so on (21). In the current experiments, we manipulated two of these factors, the agent's belief and the outcome of the action, and found that the effect of TMS to the RTPJ was specific to the agent's belief.…”

Moral emotions and the envisaging of mitigating circumstances for wrongdoing

“…judgments and moral judgments of ordinary people do not always coincide, several studies have shown that many of the same defenses found acceptable within a legal context are likewise recognized by lay adults (e.g., Alicke, 2000;Darley & Shultz, 1990;Weiner, 1995;Woolfolk, Doris, & Darley, 2006) and even young children (e.g., Darley, Klossen, & Zanna, 1978). In one important study for example Darley et al (1978) had adults, along with first and fourth graders, read a story about a person harming another person and then indicated how wrong the act was and how severely the actor should be punished.…”

“…A large body of research has shown that adults and children alike reduce their condemnation of harm when it is committed unintentionally or by accident (Costanzo, Coie, Grumet, & Farnill, 1973;Cushman, 2008;Karniol, 1979), without foresight of the risks (Lagnado & Channon, 2008), under duress or coercion (Woolfolk et al, 2006), as just punishment, Running head: MORAL EMOTIONS AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 4 training, instruction, or discipline (Rule & Duker, 1973;Sousa, Holbrook, & Piazza, 2009), as selfdefense or retribution for a prior offense (Darley et al, 1978;Hewitt, 1975), out of necessity or in the service of a greater good (Darely et al, 1978;Nichols & Mallon, 2006;Sousa et al, 2009), or harm intended to help rather than to injure (Rule, Nesdale, & McAra, 1974). Less is currently known about the mitigating circumstances that may differentially influence people's anger or disgust as evoked by categories of wrongdoing not necessarily related to harm, for example, acts that violate societal norms about sexual or bodily purity (e.g., incest, paraphilia; see Gutierrez & Giner-Sorolla, 2007;Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1993;Prinz, 2007;Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999;Russell & Giner-Sorolla, in press;Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009;Young & Saxe, 2011).…”