How Reasoning Style Influences the Attribution of Intentionality
A recent article published in Cognitive Processing by researchers Nicola Matteucci Armandi Avogli Trotti, Micaela Maria Zucchelli, Andrea Pavan, Laura Piccardi, and Raffaella Nori explores the deep connection between our reasoning style and how we attribute intentionality to others, especially in morally ambiguous situations.
Link to the official article: How does reasoning influence intentionality attribution in the case of
side effects?
Understanding the "Side-Effect Effect" or Knobe Effect
To objectively evaluate the actions of others, it is crucial to consider both their mental state (what they wanted to do) and the actual consequences of their actions. However, these consequences can distort our judgment. The "side-effect effect," also known as the Knobe effect, highlights a common cognitive bias: we are much more likely to attribute intentionality for negative side effects than for positive ones, even when they were not the actor's primary goal.
What Is the Core Problem?
The central question is why an unforeseen but anticipated negative consequence (like harming the environment) is judged as "intentional," while a positive one (like helping the environment) is not. This study delves into how individual cognitive differences can explain this asymmetry in moral judgment.
The Role of Reasoning in Reducing Cognitive Bias
The research team analyzed how different reasoning styles affect these judgments. Their findings suggest that a more analytical and deliberate approach can mitigate this bias, leading to a more objective assessment.
Key Factors Analyzed in the Study
-
Deliberative Reasoning Style: The study, involving 172 university students, used validated questionnaires like the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI) and the Actively Open-Minded Thinking (AOT) scale. The results show that individuals with a more deliberative and rational thinking style are less prone to the Knobe effect.
-
Logical Skills: A syllogistic reasoning task was administered to assess the analytical abilities of the participants.
-
Response Times: A crucial element that emerged is the time taken to respond. Longer response times were associated with a less biased judgment, indicating that taking more time allows for a more thoughtful evaluation that goes beyond initial intuition.
Main Conclusions of the Research
The study identifies two distinct pathways through which the bias in intentionality attribution is reduced: a tendency toward a more deliberative reasoning style and, independently, a longer time spent on the judgment. This suggests that both our cognitive predispositions and the context of the decision influence our moral evaluations.
By analyzing how reasoning affects our judgments, the authors demonstrate that a more thoughtful process allows for a more balanced consideration of an actor's mental state and the consequences of their actions. This contributes to a fairer and more objective moral judgment.
