Attribution of Responsibility Between Agents in a Causal Chain

In a "hired gun" killing, who do ordinary people consider more responsible-the person who instigated or the person who executed the killing? We explored the attribution of causal and moral responsibility in a causal chain, where an agent A instructs an intermediate agent B to execute some action harming victim V. Across four studies (two preregistered), we consistently found that participants attributed more causality and blame to the intermediate agent B. In Study 2, we manipulated proximity by adding a third, more direct contributing cause that occurred after A and B's involvement. Participants judged both agents to be less causal, blameworthy, and deserving of punishment when they were less proximal to the outcome, but still rated B more responsible than A in all conditions. In Study 3, we manipulated the intentionality of both agents, and in Study 4, we jointly manipulated intentionality and proximity. We showed that higher intentionality largely drove harsher judgments for each agent, and A's high intent also reduced blame for B. We also found that intentionality had a larger effect on judgments than proximity. We discuss explanations for our findings and their implications for moral and legal decision-making.