FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W80044840> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W80044840 abstract "Intentionality, Evaluative Judgments, and Causal Structure Jason Shepard (jason.s.shepard@emory.edu) Phillip Wolff (pwolff@emory.edu) Department of Psychology, 36 Eagle Row Atlanta, GA 30322 USA Abstract The results from a number of recent studies suggest that ascriptions of intentionality are based on evaluative considerations: specifically, that the likelihood of viewing a person’s actions as intentional is greater when the outcome is bad than good (see Knobe, 2006, 2010). In this research we provide an alternative explanation for these findings, one based on the idea that ascriptions of intentionality depend on causal structure. As predicted by the causal structure view, we observed that actions leading to bad outcomes are associated with negative social pressures (Experiment 1), that these negative pressures give rise to a specific kind of causal structure (Experiment 2), and that when these causal structures are pitted against the badness of the outcome, intentionality judgments track with causal structure and not badness (Experiment 3). While the badness of an outcome may have an indirect effect on judgments of intentionality, our results suggest that the factors that affect judgments of intentionality most directly are non-evaluative and objective. directly explained in terms of causal structure than badness of the outcome. The Side-Effect Effect (or Knobe effect) A connection between intentionality and badness has been demonstrated in research examining the so-called side-effect effect, or Knobe effect. Experiments investigating this effect have typically included two main conditions. In the harm condition, participants read scenarios like the following: The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, ‘We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, but it will also harm the environment.’ The chairman of the board answered, ‘I don’t care at all about harming the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program. They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was harmed. Keywords: Social cognition, Folk psychology, Theory of mind, Intentional action, Intentionality, Causal structure, Morality, Norms, Side-effect effect, Knobe effect. Introduction Ascriptions of intentionality play a fundamental role in our explanations of behaviors (Malle, Moses, & Baldwin, 2001). They influence our judgments of character (Rotenberg, 1980), deservedness of blame or praise (Lagando & Channon, 2008), the impermissibility of actions (Cushman 2008), and the severity of deserved punishment (Horan & Kaplan, 1983). Standard accounts of intentionality ascription hold that judgments of intentionality are based on objective or descriptive properties of the actors and the situation, such as foreseeability, desire, and belief (Guglielmo, Monroe, & Malle, 2009; Knobe & Malle, 1997; Mele & Sverdlik, 1996; Sripada, 2010). Recent empirical work by Knobe (2003a) and others (Nadelhoffer, 2006; Wright & Bengson, 2009; Cova & Naar, 2012) raises an alternative view, that ascriptions of intentionality may be based on evaluative properties of a situation. Specifically, Knobe (2006, 2010) has argued that the likelihood of viewing a person’s actions as intentional is greater when the outcome is bad than when it is good. In this paper, we offer a critical test of this proposal. We also put forward and test another possibility, that judgments of intentionality are most directly based on the causal structure of a situation, which can be influenced at times by evaluative considerations. In a series of three experiments, we show that the phenomenon originally observed in Knobe (2003a) and others is more After reading the scenario, participants are asked “Did the chairman intentionally harm the environment?” For this scenario, Knobe (2003a) found that 82% of the participants responded that the chairman intentionally harmed the environment. In help conditions, everything is kept the same except the side-effect is described as good. In the chairman scenario, for example, participants were told that the business plan would not only make a profit but also help the environment. Interestingly, in this alternative condition, only 23% of the participants felt that the chairman intentionally helped the environment (Knobe, 2003a). This basic finding has been replicated with other scenarios (Knobe, 2003b; Knobe, 2007; Knobe & Mendlow, 2004; Mallon, 2008; Nadelhoffer, 2004; Nadelhoffer, 2006; Uttich & Lombrozo, 2010; Wright & Bengson, 2009) and in a diverse array of populations, including Hindi speakers when the scenarios are translated into Hindi (Knobe & Burra, 2006), with four-year old children (Leslie, Knobe, & Cohen, 2006), with participants who suffer from deficits in emotional processing due to lesions in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (Young, Cushman, Adolphs, & Hauser, 2006), and with adults with high functioning autism or Asperger’s (Zalla & Leboyer, 2011). The wide range of situations and populations supports the conclusion that the basic pattern of findings is both reliable and conceptually significant, but do these findings really demonstrate that" @default.
• W80044840 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W80044840 creator A5001436949 @default.
• W80044840 creator A5041912661 @default.
• W80044840 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W80044840 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W80044840 title "Intentionality, Evaluative Judgments, and Causal Structure" @default.
• W80044840 cites W1506104239 @default.
• W80044840 cites W189924933 @default.
• W80044840 cites W1964926230 @default.
• W80044840 cites W1966489933 @default.
• W80044840 cites W1972903192 @default.
• W80044840 cites W1974555008 @default.
• W80044840 cites W1976729917 @default.
• W80044840 cites W1984810718 @default.
• W80044840 cites W1987770275 @default.
• W80044840 cites W1992903430 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2004598430 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2009131574 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2009933369 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2013206332 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2019459280 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2020896152 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2034925628 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2059199671 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2063593461 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2071987374 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2077921357 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2089120699 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2090497191 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2095449516 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2104511787 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2106748507 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2106973621 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2117155762 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2120555093 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2126900488 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2136900371 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2139127262 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2148224179 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2156311465 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2166266817 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2172233698 @default.
• W80044840 cites W2496194149 @default.
• W80044840 cites W3121819056 @default.
• W80044840 cites W5745097 @default.
• W80044840 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W80044840 type Work @default.
• W80044840 sameAs 80044840 @default.
• W80044840 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W80044840 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W80044840 hasAuthorship W80044840A5001436949 @default.
• W80044840 hasAuthorship W80044840A5041912661 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C144237770 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C148220186 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C163504300 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C166151441 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C2777200700 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C2777363581 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W80044840 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C111472728 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C121332964 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C138885662 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C144237770 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C148220186 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C15744967 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C163504300 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C166151441 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C180747234 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C2777200700 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C2777363581 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C33923547 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C62520636 @default.
• W80044840 hasConceptScore W80044840C77805123 @default.
• W80044840 hasIssue "35" @default.
• W80044840 hasLocation W800448401 @default.
• W80044840 hasOpenAccess W80044840 @default.
• W80044840 hasPrimaryLocation W800448401 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W1563848438 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W193694093 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W1974425357 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W1975374727 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W1991603185 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W2004052933 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W2098688415 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W2113517011 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W2151295802 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W2169897903 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W2572894200 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W2765436537 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W2767232432 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W2955629376 @default.
• W80044840 hasRelatedWork W29785157 @default.

• next