The Effect of Cognitive Load on Intent‐Based Moral Judgment

Abstract

When making a moral judgment, people largely care about two factors: Who did it (causal responsibility), and did they intend to (intention)? Since Piaget's seminal studies, we have known that as children mature, they gradually place greater emphasis on intention, and less on mere bad outcomes, when making moral judgments. Today, we know that this developmental shift has several signature properties. Recently, it has been shown that when adults make moral judgments under cognitive load, they exhibit a pattern similar to young children; that is, their judgments become notably more outcome based. Here, we show that all of the same signature properties that accompany the outcome‐to‐intent shift in childhood characterize the “intent‐to‐outcome” shift obtained under cognitive load in adults. These findings hold important implications for current theories of moral judgment.

Judging accidental harm: Reasoning style modulates the weight of intention and harm severity

“…In addition, the more “outcome-based” moral judgement of accidental harm in children with autism may be explained by deficits in executive function skills (Margoni et al, 2019). An increase in outcome-based moral judgement of accidental harm has also been evidenced when taxing participants’ cognitive resources (Buon et al, 2013; Martin et al, 2021). This set of studies highlight the contribution of executive functions, or at least cognitive resources, to intent-based moral judgement.…”

“…In a recent study, Martin and colleagues also manipulated cognitive load while participants had to judge the perpetrator of an accident. The higher cognitive load, the less “intent-based” moral judgement (Martin et al, 2021). Finally, other studies reported that reduced executive function skills in children with autism as compared to neurotypical peers (Margoni et al, 2019) and in older adults as compared to younger adults (Margoni et al, 2018) explained increased judgement severity of accidental harm in these populations.…”

The Effects of Intent, Outcome, and Causality on Moral Judgments and Decision Processes

“…The agent’s intent as well as the action outcome are factors that take a preponderant place in morality, from childhood for the outcome and later in the moral development for intent features ( Kohlberg, 1958 ; Martin et al, 2021 ; Piaget, 1995 ). Intentional attribution process refers to the inference of the agent’s internal mental states as a combination of beliefs and desires ( Cushman, 2008 ; Cushman, 2015 ; Cushman & Mele, 2008 ; Young & Saxe, 2011 ).…”

“…Regardless of the moral judgment type (i.e., wrongness, permissibility, punishment, or blame), the agent’s intent to cause harm often plays a greater role in the final judgment than considering the outcome of the situation ( Cushman, 2008 ; Kohlberg, 1958 ; Leloup et al, 2018 ). Unless the person who judges is under cognitive load, then his or her judgment could be more outcome-based than usual (see Martin et al, 2021 ). However, even without manipulating cognitive load, outcome importance varies according to the type of moral judgment involved ( Cushman, 2008 ).…”

“…In the current study, we aimed to extend our understanding of the way people judge others’ actions regarding moral situations. When someone commits a harmful action, people judge this agent not only regarding his or her intent, but also regarding the action outcome and the agent’s causal role in this outcome ( Cushman, 2008 ; Martin et al, 2021 ). We thus analyzed the impact of these three factors on moral judgments and their entanglement in the course of time through a novel use of mouse-tracking paradigms, in an adapted version for the purpose of this study.…”