The Place of the Trace: Negligence and Responsibility

Murray, Samuel

doi:10.1007/s13164-019-00444-x

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Negligent wrongdoing , then, is negligent action that creates a risk of harm. This means that negligent wrongdoers create substantial risks of harm without realizing what they are doing (until it is too late) and without desiring to create such risks (Murray, 2020).…”

Section: Responsibility and Negligencementioning

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

Section: Responsibility and Negligencementioning

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

show abstract

“…This argument depends on the (contentious) claim that no single definition of mind wandering picks out an extensionally adequate concept. On this basis, some have begun to propose alternative subjective measures of mind wandering that reflect the inherent heterogeneity of the construct (Murray et al, 2020).…”

Section: : Skepticism About Self-reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Study of Passive Thinking: Methods of Mind-Wandering Research

Murray¹,

Irving²,

Krasich³

2022

Neuroscience and Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The science of mind wandering has rapidly expanded over the past 20 years. During this boom, mind wandering researchers have relied on self-report methods, where participants rate whether their minds were wandering. This is not an historical quirk. Rather, we argue that self-report is indispensable for researchers who study passive phenomena like mind wandering. We consider purportedly "objective" methods that measure mind wandering with eye tracking and machine learning. These measures are validated in terms of how well they predict self-reports, which means that purportedly objective measures of mind wandering retain a subjective core. Mind wandering science cannot break from the cycle of self-report. Skeptics about self-report might conclude that mind wandering science has methodological foundations of sand. We take a rather more optimistic view. We present empirical and philosophical reasons to be confident in self-reports about mind wandering.Empirically, these self-reports are remarkably consistent in their contents and behavioral and neural correlates. Philosophically, self-reports are consistent with our best theories about the function of mind wandering. We argue that this triangulation gives us reason to trust both theory and method.

show abstract

Minding Negligence

Agule

2021

Criminal Law, Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Place of the Trace: Negligence and Responsibility

Cited by 4 publications

References 47 publications

Mental control and attributions of blame for negligent wrongdoing.

Mental control and attributions of blame for negligent wrongdoing.

The Scientific Study of Passive Thinking: Methods of Mind-Wandering Research

Minding Negligence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About