Unjustifiably Irresponsible: The Effects of Social Roles on Attributions of Intent

Abstract

How do people’s social roles change others’ perceptions of their intentions to cause harm? Three preregistered vignette-based experiments ( N = 788) manipulated the social role of someone causing harm and measured how intentional people thought the harm was. Results indicate that people judge harmful consequences as intentional when they think the actor unjustifiably caused harm. Social roles were shown to alter intention judgments by making people responsible for preventing harm (thereby rendering the harm as an intentional neglect of one’s responsibilities) or for causing the harm (thereby excusing it as an unintentional byproduct of the role). Additionally, Experiment 3 conceptually replicated and moderated the side-effect effect —revealing that people think harmful side effects are intentional when the harm is unjustified but not when a role’s responsibility justifies it. We discuss the importance of social information—including roles—in how people judge others’ intentions.

Valence of agents and recipients moderates the side-effect effect: two within-subjects, multi-item conceptual replications

“…In attempting to discern the mechanisms underlying the SEE, some previous empirical work has shown that factors relating to the agent can moderate it (Cova, Lantian, & Boudesseul, 2016), such as personality, motives, and past behaviour (Brogaard, 2010;Hughes & Trafimow, 2012, 2015Shepherd, 2012), level of power (Robbins et al, 2017), skill (Guglielmo & Malle, 2010b), goodness or badness (Beebe & Jensen, 2012;Newman, De Freitas, & Knobe, 2015), contextual constraints on the agent (Monroe & Reeder, 2011), and social role (Rowe, Vonasch, & Turp, 2020). Participants may also strongly consider the agent's "I don't care" statement in representing the agent's attitudes (Sripada & Konrath, 2011) as it communicates an active and negative desire (Guglielmo & Malle, 2010a).…”