The Catch-22 of Forgetfulness: Responsibility for Mental Mistakes

Irving, Zachary C.; Murray, Samuel; Glasser, Aaron; Krasich, Kristina

doi:10.1080/00048402.2022.2157031

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Two Channel Model makes distinct empirical predictions (Irving et al, 2023). Some of our predictions integrate those of past theories.…”

Section: Mixed Evidential Supportmentioning

confidence: 53%

Blame for Hum(e)an Beings: The Role of Character Information in Judgments of Blame

Murray,

O’Neill,

Bridges

et al. 2024

Social Psychological and Personality Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does character information inform judgments of blame? Some argue that character information is indirectly relevant to blame because it enriches judgments about the mental states of a wrongdoer. Others argue that character information is directly relevant to blame, even when character traits are causally irrelevant to the wrongdoing. We propose an empirical synthesis of these views: a two channel model of blame. The model predicts that character information directly affects blame when this information is relevant to the wrongdoing that elicits blame. Furthermore, the effect of character information on blame depends on judgments about the true self that are independent of judgments of intentionality. Across three preregistered studies ( N = 662), we found support for all three predictions of the two channel model. We propose that this reflects two distinct functions of blame: a social regulatory function that encourages norm compliance and a pedagogical function that encourages personal improvement.

show abstract

“…The Two Channel Model makes distinct empirical predictions (Irving et al, 2023). Some of our predictions integrate those of past theories.…”

Section: Mixed Evidential Supportmentioning

confidence: 53%

Blame for Hum(e)an Beings: The Role of Character Information in Judgments of Blame

Murray,

O’Neill,

Bridges

et al. 2024

Social Psychological and Personality Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, we used a recent method (Irving et al, 2020) to generate vignettes with the same content but different levels of stress. Second, we included a manipulation check from ongoing research (Irving et al, in press) to ensure that our condition alters third-personal beliefs about mental control.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental control and attributions of blame for negligent wrongdoing.

Murray¹,

Krasich²,

Irving³

et al. 2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judgments of blame for others are typically sensitive to what an agent knows and desires.However, when people act negligently, they do not know what they are doing and do not desire the outcomes of their negligence. How, then, do people attribute blame for negligent wrongdoing?We propose that people attribute blame for negligent wrongdoing based on perceived mental control, or the degree to which an agent guides their thoughts and attention over time. To acquire information about others' mental control, people self-project their own perceived mental control to anchor third-personal judgments about mental control and concomitant responsibility for negligent wrongdoing. In four experiments (N = 841), we tested whether perceptions of mental control drive third-personal judgments of blame for negligent wrongdoing. Study 1 showed that the ease with which people can counterfactually imagine an individual being non-negligent mediated the relationship between judgments of control and blame. Studies 2a and 2b indicated that perceived mental control has a strong effect on judgments of blame for negligent wrongdoing and that first-personal judgments of mental control are moderately correlated with third-personal judgments of blame for negligent wrongdoing. Finally, we used an autobiographical memory manipulation in Study 3 to make personal episodes of forgetfulness salient. Participants for whom past personal episodes of forgetfulness were made salient judged negligent wrongdoers less harshly compared to a control group for whom past episodes of negligence were not salient.Collectively, these findings suggest that first-personal judgments of mental control drive thirdpersonal judgments of blame for negligent wrongdoing and indicate a novel role for counterfactual thinking in the attribution of responsibility.

show abstract

“…In sum, the moral disciplining account is correct that purity behaviors are moralized because of how such behaviors anchor inferences about what a person is like deep down. These inferences then shape how we think about people as cooperative partners, but they are distinct from judgments about individual control (Irving, Murray, Krasich, & Glasser, 2023;Murray, Murray, Stewart, Sinnott-Armstrong, & De Brigard, 2023). Thus, puritanical morality is related to cooperation, although this relationship cannot be explained entirely through perceived alterations in self-control.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral disciplining: The cognitive and evolutionary foundations of puritanical morality

Fitouchi

André²,

Baumard³

2022

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do many human societies morally condemn apparently victimless and pleasurable behaviors, such as lust, gluttony, drinking, drugs, gambling, or even music and dance? Why do they morally praise temperance, chastity, sobriety, decency, and piety? While this puritanical morality often appears as an exception to the cooperative function of moral cognition, we propose that it stems, like other moral concerns, from moral judgements targeting cooperative challenges. Specifically, we propose that it consists of preemptive moralizations of behaviors perceived as risk factors for uncooperative self-control failures, impeding people's ability to resist the short-term temptations naturally conflicting with cooperative motivations.

show abstract

The Catch-22 of Forgetfulness: Responsibility for Mental Mistakes

Cited by 13 publications

References 38 publications

Blame for Hum(e)an Beings: The Role of Character Information in Judgments of Blame

Blame for Hum(e)an Beings: The Role of Character Information in Judgments of Blame

Mental control and attributions of blame for negligent wrongdoing.

Moral disciplining: The cognitive and evolutionary foundations of puritanical morality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About