Perceived intent motivates people to magnify observed harms

Ames, Daniel R.; Fiske, Susan T.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1501592112

Cited by 60 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This interaction is characterized by a superadditive relationship between the component factors. This is consistent with studies showing that intentionality augments the negative valence associated with the same harmful outcome (Gray and Wegner, 2008) and can even augment a person's quantification of the severity of a harmful outcome (Ames andFiske, 2013, 2015). Using functional imaging, we sought to parse how these two components, mental state and harm, converge into a punishment response that is defined by their interaction.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…This right DLPFC ROI also overlaps with the right DLPFC ROI previously hypothesized to be involved in the decision to punish (Buckholtz et al, 2008;. Previous studies investigating second-and third-party punishment decision-making have frequently found punishment decision-making to selectively engage the right as opposed to the left DLPFC (Sanfey et al, 2003;Knoch et al, 2006;Buckholtz et al, 2008;Baumgartner et al, 2014). Here punishment classification accuracy was similarly right-lateralized, as we failed to find any decoding (t ϭ 0.94, p ϭ 0.18 one-tailed) in a region with the same y and z coordinates in the left hemisphere.…”

Section: Fmri Datamentioning

confidence: 70%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Parsing the Behavioral and Brain Mechanisms of Third-Party Punishment

Ginther

Bonnie

Hoffman³

et al. 2016

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolved capacity for third-party punishment is considered crucial to the emergence and maintenance of elaborate human social organization and is central to the modern provision of fairness and justice within society. Although it is well established that the mental state of the offender and the severity of the harm he caused are the two primary predictors of punishment decisions, the precise cognitive and brain mechanisms by which these distinct components are evaluated and integrated into a punishment decision are poorly understood. Using fMRI, here we implement a novel experimental design to functionally dissociate the mechanisms underlying evaluation, integration, and decision that were conflated in previous studies of third-party punishment. Behaviorally, the punishment decision is primarily defined by a superadditive interaction between harm and mental state, with subjects weighing the interaction factor more than the single factors of harm and mental state. On a neural level, evaluation of harms engaged brain areas associated with affective and somatosensory processing, whereas mental state evaluation primarily recruited circuitry involved in mentalization. Harm and mental state evaluations are integrated in medial prefrontal and posterior cingulate structures, with the amygdala acting as a pivotal hub of the interaction between harm and mental state. This integrated information is used by the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex at the time of the decision to assign an appropriate punishment through a distributed coding system. Together, these findings provide a blueprint of the brain mechanisms by which neutral third parties render punishment decisions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Fmri Datamentioning

confidence: 70%

Parsing the Behavioral and Brain Mechanisms of Third-Party Punishment

Ginther

Bonnie

Hoffman³

et al. 2016

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, when an observer believes that the agent did not intend to achieve an outcomerather, the outcome was unexpectedly achieved-the observer is likely to give less praise or blame to the agent for his or her actions, compared with when the observer believes the agent intended to cause the outcome (Krebs 1982). For example, damage caused unintentionally is underestimated and, therefore, a person who unintentionally causes damage is likely to receive less blame for their actions than a person who intentionally caused the same amount of damage (Ames and Fiske 2015).…”

Section: Intentionality and Product Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unexpected-Framing Effect: Impact of Framing a Product Benefit as Unexpected on Product Desire

Wadhwa

Kim

Chattopadhyay

et al. 2019

Journal of Consumer Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Product tests are a common feature before any product launch. During product tests, marketers might discover that the product can deliver additional unintended benefits to the users. Should marketers communicate such unexpectedly found benefits to their potential customers as an unexpectedly discovered benefit or as an intended benefit? Across six experiments, including a field experiment, the current research shows that framing a product benefit as unexpected increases desire for the product, when consumers have a heightened motivation to seek rewards. However, framing an undesirable product feature (e.g., a side effect) as unexpected can negatively impact product desirability for consumers, who have a heightened motivation to avoid losses. Finally, highlighting another managerially important boundary condition, our findings show that the unexpected-framing effect is attenuated when the benefit framed as unexpected is incongruent with the product category. Theoretical and managerial implications of unexpected framing are discussed.

show abstract

“…Mothers described in the vignettes were 10 years younger (ranging in age from [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] and held lower-paying jobs than in the standard vignettes (e.g., McDonalds cashier instead of accountant). Otherwise identical to Experiment 1.…”

Section: (N = 164)mentioning

confidence: 99%

No Child Left Alone: Moral Judgments about Parents Affect Estimates of Risk to Children

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, Americans have adopted a parenting norm in which every child is expected to be under constant direct adult supervision. Parents who violate this norm by allowing their children to be alone, even for short periods of time, often face harsh criticism and even legal action. This is true despite the fact that children are much more likely to be hurt, for example, in car accidents. Why then do bystanders call 911 when they see children playing in parks, but not when they see children riding in cars? Here, we present results from six studies indicating that moral judgments play a role: The less morally acceptable a parent's reason for leaving a child alone, the more danger people think the child is in. This suggests that people's estimates of danger to unsupervised children are affected by an intuition that parents who leave their children alone have done something morally wrong.

show abstract

Perceived intent motivates people to magnify observed harms

Cited by 60 publications

References 46 publications

Parsing the Behavioral and Brain Mechanisms of Third-Party Punishment

Parsing the Behavioral and Brain Mechanisms of Third-Party Punishment

Unexpected-Framing Effect: Impact of Framing a Product Benefit as Unexpected on Product Desire

No Child Left Alone: Moral Judgments about Parents Affect Estimates of Risk to Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About