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

References

• Adams, F., & Steadman, A. (2004). Intentional action in ordinary language: Core concept or pragmatic understanding? Analysis, 64(2), 173–181. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8284.2004.00480.x
   Google Scholar
• Alicke, M., & Rose, D. (2010). Culpable control or moral concepts? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(4), 330–331. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10001664
   Google Scholar
• Alicke, M., & Rose, D. (2012). Culpable control and causal deviance. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(10), 723–735. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00459.x
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modelling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   Google Scholar
• Beebe, J. R. (2013). A Knobe effect for belief ascriptions. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(2), 235–258. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-013-0132-9
   Google Scholar
• Beebe, J. R., & Buckwalter, W. (2010). The epistemic side-effect effect. Mind & Language, 25(4), 474–498. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01398.x
   Google Scholar
• Beebe, J. R., & Jensen, M. (2012). Surprising connections between knowledge and action: The robustness of the epistemic side-effect effect. Philosophical Psychology, 25(5), 689–715. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.622439
   Google Scholar
• Brogaard, B. (2010). “Stupid people deserve what they get”: The effects of personality assessment on judgments of intentional action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(4), 332–334. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1000169X
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). Analysis of ordinal data with cumulative link models – estimation with the R-package ordinal. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/vignettes/clm_intro.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, R. H. B. (2018). Ordinal - regression models for ordinal data (R Package Version 2018.4-19). http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335–359. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80014-3
   Google Scholar
• Cokely, E. T., & Feltz, A. (2009). Individual differences, judgment biases, and theory-of-mind: Deconstructing the intentional action side effect asymmetry. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.007
   Google Scholar
• Cova, F. (2017). Intentional action and the frame-of-mind argument: New experimental challenges to hindriks. Philosophical Explorations, 20(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2016.1234638
   Google Scholar
• Cova, F., Lantian, A., & Boudesseul, J. (2016). Can the Knobe effect be explained away? Methodological controversies in the study of the relationship between intentionality and morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(10), 1295–1308. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216656356
   Google Scholar
• Cova, F., & Naar, H. (2012). Side-Effect effect without side effects: The pervasive impact of moral considerations on judgments of intentionality. Philosophical Psychology, 25(6), 837–854. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.622363
   Google Scholar
• Dalbert, C. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the Personal belief in a Just World scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 12(2), 79–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022091609047
   Google Scholar
• Díaz, R., Viciana, H., & Gomila, A. (2017). Cold side-effect effect: Affect does not mediate the influence of moral considerations in intentionality judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 295. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00295
   Google Scholar
• Feltz, A., & Cokely, E. T. (2011). Individual differences in theory-of-mind judgments: Order effects and side effects. Philosophical Psychology, 24(3), 343–355. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.556611
   Google Scholar
• Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(5), 795–817. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00072-7
   Google Scholar
• Guglielmo, S., & Malle, B. F. (2010a). Can unintended side effects be intentional? Resolving a controversy over intentionality and morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1635–1647. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386733
   Google Scholar
• Guglielmo, S., & Malle, B. F. (2010b). Enough skill to kill: Intentionality judgments and the moral valence of action. Cognition, 117(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.002
   Google Scholar
• Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128–167. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.128
   Google Scholar
• Hafer, C. L., & Sutton, R. (2016). Belief in a just world. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 145–160). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hindriks, F., Douven, I., & Singmann, H. (2016). A new angle on the Knobe effect: Intentionality correlates with blame, not with praise. Mind & Language, 31(2), 204–220. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12101
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, J. S., & Trafimow, D. (2012). Inferences about character and motive influence intentionality attributions about side effects. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4), 661–673. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02031.x
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, J. S., & Trafimow, D. (2015). Mind attributions about moral actors: Intentionality is greater given coherent cues. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(2), 220–235. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12077
   Google Scholar
• Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028347
   Google Scholar
• Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across sample and setting. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225
   Google Scholar
• Kneer, M., & Bourgeois-Gironde, S. (2017). Mens rea ascription, expertise and outcome effects: Professional judges surveyed. Cognition, 169, 139–146. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.008
   Google Scholar
• Knobe, J. (2003a). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63(3), 190–194. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/63.3.190
   Google Scholar
• Knobe, J. (2003b). Intentional action in folk psychology: An experimental investigation. Philosophical Psychology, 16(2), 309–324. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080307771
   Google Scholar
• Knobe, J. (2010). Person as scientist, person as moralist. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(4), 315–329. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000907
   Google Scholar
• Laurent, S. M., Clark, B. A., & Schweitzer, K. A. (2015). Why side-effect outcomes do not affect intuitions about intentional actions: Properly shifting the focus from intentional outcomes back to intentional actions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000011
   Google Scholar
• Laurent, S. M., Reich, B. J., & Skorinko, J. L. M. (2019). Reconstructing the side-effect effect: A new way of understanding how moral considerations drive intentionality asymmetries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 1747–1766. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000554
   Google Scholar
• Laurent, S. M., Reich, B. J., & Skorinko, J. L. M. (2021). Understanding side-effect intentionality asymmetries: Meaning, morality, or attitudes and defaults? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(3), 410–425. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220928237
   Google Scholar
• Lenth, R., Love, J., & Hervé, M. (2018). Package emmeans. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/emmeans.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, M. J. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of performer’s reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(4), 355–360. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021806
   Google Scholar
• Leslie, A. M., Knobe, J., & Cohen, A. (2006). Acting intentionally and the side-effect effect: Theory of mind and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17(5), 421–427. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01722.x
   Google Scholar
• Liddell, T. M., & Kruschke, J. K. (2018). Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 328–348. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.009
   Google Scholar
• Machery, E. (2008). The folk concept of intentional action: Philosophical and experimental issues. Mind & Language, 23(2), 165–189. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00336.x
   Google Scholar
• Mallon, R. (2008). Knobe versus Machery: Testing the trade-off hypothesis. Mind & Language, 23(2), 247–255. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00339.x
   Google Scholar
• Monroe, A. E., & Reeder, G. D. (2011). Motive-matching: Perceptions of intentionality for coerced action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1255–1261. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.012
   Google Scholar
• Nadelhoffer, T. (2004). On praise, side effects, and folk ascriptions of intentionality. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 24(2), 196–213. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091241
   Google Scholar
• Newman, G. E., De Freitas, J., & Knobe, J. (2015). Beliefs about the true self explain asymmetries based on moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 39(1), 96–125. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12134
   Google Scholar
• Nichols, S., & Ulatowski, J. (2007). Intuitions and individual differences: The Knobe effect revisited. Mind & Language, 22(4), 346–365. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00312.x
   Google Scholar
• Pellizzoni, S., Siegal, M., & Surian, L. (2009). Foreknowledge, caring, and the side-effect effect in young children. Developmental Psychology, 45(1), 289–295. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014165
   Google Scholar
• Pettit, D., & Knobe, J. (2009). The pervasive impact of moral judgment. Mind & Language, 24(5), 586–604. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01375.x
   Google Scholar
• Phelan, M., & Sarkissian, H. (2009). Is the ‘trade-off hypothesis’ worth trading for? Mind & Language, 24(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01358.x
   Google Scholar
• Qualtrics. (2015–2017). Qualtrics. http://qualtrics.com/
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
   Google Scholar
• Robbins, E., Shepard, J., & Rochat, P. (2017). Variations in judgements of intentional action and moral evaluation across eight cultures. Cognition, 164, 22–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.02.012
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, B., Stey, P., & Alfano, M. (2015). Reversing the side-effect effect: The power of salient norms. Philosophical Studies, 172(1), 177–206. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-014-0283-2
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, S. J., Vonasch, A. J., & Turp, M.-J. (2020). Unjustifiably irresponsible: The effects of social roles on attributions of intent. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 194855062097108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620971086
   Google Scholar
• Shepherd, J. (2012). Action, attitude, and the Knobe effect: Another asymmetry. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-011-0079-7
   Google Scholar
• Sripada, C. S. (2010). The deep self model and asymmetries in folk judgments about intentional action. Philosophical Studies, 151(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9423-5
   Google Scholar
• Sripada, C. S. (2012). Mental state attributions and the side-effect effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 232–238. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.008
   Google Scholar
• Sripada, C. S., & Konrath, S. (2011). Telling more than we can know about intentional action. Mind & Language, 26(3), 353–380. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01421.x
   Google Scholar
• Tannenbaum, D., Ditto, P. H., & Pizarro, D. A. (2007). Different moral values produce different judgments of intentional action. Unpublished manuscript. Downloaded from academia.edu, The Pennsylvania State University.
   Google Scholar
• Uttich, K., & Lombrozo, T. (2010). Norms inform mental state ascriptions: A rational explanation for the side-effect effect. Cognition, 116(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.003
   Google Scholar
• Vonasch, A. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2017). Unjustified side effects were strongly intended: Taboo tradeoffs and the side-effect effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 83–92. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.05.006
   Google Scholar
• Wright, J. C., & Bengson, J. (2009). Asymmetries in judgments of responsibility and intentional action. Mind & Language, 24(1), 24–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01352.x
   Google Scholar