Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Torts I01:14

Torts I

Torts in nursing are wrongful acts that can harm patients and potentially lead to civil liability for the involved nurse. These wrongful acts range from unintentional errors to deliberate actions. Depending on the nature and severity of the tort, a nurse found liable may face financial penalties or disciplinary actions. Understanding the distinctions between intentional, quasi-intentional, and unintentional torts is crucial for nurses to mitigate risks and provide safe patient care.
Intentional...
Torts III01:26

Torts III

Types of Quasi-intentional Torts in Healthcare
Quasi-intentional torts in healthcare involve acts where intent is not directed to harm an individual but results in harm due to careless or reckless speech.
Torts II01:13

Torts II

Intentional torts in healthcare refer to deliberate actions that cause harm or infringe on the rights of others. Understanding these torts is crucial for healthcare professionals to avoid legal liabilities and maintain ethical standards in patient care.
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization01:12

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization

Error is the deviation of the obtained result from the true, expected value or the estimated central value. Errors are expressed in absolute or relative terms.
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...
Nurses' Legal Responsibilities III01:16

Nurses' Legal Responsibilities III

Nurse-to-nurse relationships are legally required to adhere to professional standards, ensuring a respectful and positive working environment. Professional conduct demands that nurses treat all colleagues respectfully and courteously, fostering a productive, supportive workplace. Nurses must actively eliminate bullying, discrimination, and harassment to maintain a safe and inclusive environment.
Cultivating a culture of collaboration and mutual respect among nurses transcends mere enhancement...
Nurses' Legal Responsibilities II01:23

Nurses' Legal Responsibilities II

Establishing a secure, collaborative nurse-patient relationship is crucial for delivering high-quality care. This relationship, founded on trust, respect, and honesty, enhances the patient's comfort and willingness to share vital health information. For example, a nurse who listens actively and without judgment provides clear information about health conditions and treatment options and respects patient decisions, which builds a trusting relationship.
Communication between nurses and patients...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Loyalty from a personal point of view: A cross-cultural prototype study of loyalty.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2024
Same author

The strategic allocation theory of vigilance.

Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science·2024
Same author

Purity is linked to cooperation but not necessarily through self-control.

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2023
Same author

Within your rights: Dissociating wrongness and permissibility in moral judgement.

The British journal of social psychology·2023
Same author

Compassion and decision fatigue among healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic in a Colombian sample.

PloS one·2023
Same author

Moralization and self-control strategy selection.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2023
Same journal

Metacognitive and Interpersonal Intellectual Humility Are Asymmetrically Associated with Well-Being.

Personality & social psychology bulletin·2026
Same journal

Intergroup Contact and Belonging Among Ethiopian Jews in Ethiopia.

Personality & social psychology bulletin·2026
Same journal

A Taxonomy of Data Synthesis.

Personality & social psychology bulletin·2026
Same journal

When and Why Beliefs About the Causes of a Policy Problem Predict Policy Support.

Personality & social psychology bulletin·2026
Same journal

Prospects of Downward Mobility Cause Status Anxiety and Life Dissatisfaction.

Personality & social psychology bulletin·2026
Same journal

Fluency as a Cue to Authenticity.

Personality & social psychology bulletin·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 17, 2026

Virtual Reality Tools for Assessing Unilateral Spatial Neglect: A Novel Opportunity for Data Collection
07:04

Virtual Reality Tools for Assessing Unilateral Spatial Neglect: A Novel Opportunity for Data Collection

Published on: March 10, 2021

Varieties of Negligence.

Samuel Murray1,2,3, Devon Guzy3, Santiago Amaya1,4

  • 1Laboratorio de Juicios y Emociones Morales, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.

Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin
|May 15, 2026
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Social evaluations of negligence depend on the specific nature of the failure. This study reveals how diligence, errors, and ignorance in negligence influence moral judgments and blame, with implications for legal sentencing.

Keywords:
intentionalitymoral judgmentnegligencepunishmentself-projection

More Related Videos

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime
07:36

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

Published on: May 3, 2016

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 17, 2026

Virtual Reality Tools for Assessing Unilateral Spatial Neglect: A Novel Opportunity for Data Collection
07:04

Virtual Reality Tools for Assessing Unilateral Spatial Neglect: A Novel Opportunity for Data Collection

Published on: March 10, 2021

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime
07:36

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

Published on: May 3, 2016

Area of Science:

  • Psychology
  • Moral Psychology
  • Legal Psychology

Background:

  • Negligence is commonly viewed as a cognitive failure.
  • Social judgments of negligence are influenced by the specific mechanisms of failure.
  • Existing research lacks a unified framework for understanding these variations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose a unified framework for understanding variations in social evaluations of negligence.
  • To investigate how different types of negligence (diligence, perceptual/mnemonic errors, ignorance) affect moral judgments.
  • To explore the impact of negligence type on blame, perceived intentionality, and legal sanctions.

Main Methods:

  • Conducted four pre-registered experiments with 2,727 participants.
  • Utilized a judgment-updating paradigm to assess the impact of negligence information.
  • Employed self-report measures to gauge attitudes and judgments.
  • Investigated priming effects related to ease of avoidance and self-projection.

Main Results:

  • Negligence type significantly affected moral judgments, blame, and perceptions of wrongness and accidentality.
  • Information about process and diligence differentially influenced these judgments.
  • Negligence information reduced perceived intentionality but selectively increased blame for certain negligence types.
  • Priming effects demonstrated that emphasizing ease of avoidance increased sanctions, while self-projection cues attenuated them.

Conclusions:

  • The study provides a framework integrating diverse negligence research, specifying factors influencing evaluations.
  • Findings highlight policy implications for jury instructions and sentencing in negligence cases.
  • Acknowledges limitations in generalizability due to a US-based, internet-accessible participant pool.