Understanding Side-Effect Intentionality Asymmetries: Meaning, Morality, or Attitudes and Defaults?

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Moral Psychology
• Philosophy of Action

Background:

• Harmful side effects are more frequently labeled as intentional than helpful ones.
• Previous explanations suggest moral considerations influence judgments of intentional action.
• An alternative hypothesis proposes differing interpretations of questions about intentional harm versus help.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate whether differing interpretations of questions explain the asymmetry in intentionality judgments for harmful versus helpful side effects.
• To challenge the notion that moral judgments are the primary driver of this asymmetry.

Main Methods:

• Four experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis.
• Participants were presented with scenarios involving helpful or harmful side effects.
• Question interpretation and intentionality judgments were analyzed.

Main Results:

• Participants interpreted questions about intentional helping differently than questions about intentional harm.
• When presented with helpful side effects, questions were interpreted as asking about the literal action or the reason for the action.
• When presented with harmful side effects, questions were interpreted as asking about intentional action despite foreseeable harm.
• Differences in question interpretation explained the asymmetry in intentionality judgments.

Conclusions:

• The asymmetry in labeling harmful versus helpful side effects as intentional may stem from how questions are interpreted, not solely from moral considerations.
• These findings question the extent to which side-effect intentionality asymmetries reflect core concepts of intentional action.
• The study highlights the importance of linguistic interpretation in understanding judgments of intentionality.