Cold Side-Effect Effect: Affect Does Not Mediate the Influence of Moral Considerations in Intentionality Judgments.

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Moral Psychology
• Social Psychology

Background:

• The side-effect effect (SEE) describes the tendency to perceive harmful side effects as more intentional than beneficial ones.
• This asymmetry in judgment highlights the influence of moral considerations on non-moral concepts like intentionality.
• The psychological mechanisms underlying the SEE, particularly the role of affect, remain debated.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the affective bias hypothesis (ABH), which posits that anger towards agents causing harm drives the SEE.
• To systematically examine the role of anger in intentionality judgments within the context of the SEE.
• To explore alternative explanations for the SEE beyond affective responses.

Main Methods:

• A series of empirical studies were conducted.
• Participants' anger levels were systematically measured and manipulated.
• Intentionality judgments in scenarios involving harmful and helpful side effects were analyzed.

Main Results:

• Findings indicate that anger does not play a significant role in intentionality judgments related to the SEE.
• The study provides evidence against the affective bias hypothesis as the primary explanation for the SEE.
• Results support the role of non-emotional motivation to blame in driving the SEE.

Conclusions:

• Anger is not the driving force behind the side-effect effect.
• The SEE appears to be influenced by a motivation to blame, independent of emotional responses like anger.
• Further research should explore non-affective factors contributing to moral judgments of intentionality.