Psychology Reader

Intentions in Moral Judgment Across Societies

H. Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Alyssa N. Crittenden, and 12 others · 2016 · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Role
Methodological contribution
Difficulty
Moderate
Full work length
6 pages
Type
Journal article

Access

Psychology Reader links to legitimate sources and does not host article PDFs.

Reading focus

Syllabus: How Do Culture, Morality and Religion Shape One Another?

Compare intention and mitigation effects across different acts, keeping within-setting variation visible.

Why you’re reading it. Test how a shared capacity to consider intentions can coexist with different rules about responsibility.

A question to consider. What further comparison would distinguish a local rule about accidental harm from a general tendency to ignore intentions?

Why this reading

Barrett and colleagues vary intentions and mitigating circumstances in judgments of wrongdoing across ten communities. The design asks both whether intentions matter and whether their weight depends on the action, the circumstances and the setting.

Before you read

Intent concerns what an actor meant to do; a mitigating circumstance can alter blame even when an action was intentional. The study uses stories about theft, physical harm, poisoning and a food taboo. A judgment about a story is not an observation of punishment in everyday life.

Read for

  1. Compare high- and low-intent versions within each kind of act instead of treating intention sensitivity as a single group trait.
  2. Separate the results for intention from those for self-defense, necessity, mistaken beliefs and other mitigating circumstances.

Consider afterwards

  1. Why could two communities agree that intentions sometimes matter but differ in judging an accidental food-taboo violation?
  2. What additional evidence would distinguish a local rule about responsibility from difficulty understanding the story?

Editorial context

The sample comprises 322 participants across eight small-scale communities and two Western comparison settings. All ten settings showed sensitivity to some information about intentions or mitigating circumstances; this is not evidence that some groups cannot understand other minds. Differences depend on the act and comparison. The study was not designed to identify which cultural process caused the variation, and its samples cannot establish national or universal moral profiles.