Cited by 136Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentEmotions and Moral Behavior

The influence of negligence, intention, and outcome on children’s moral judgments

Open access
Nobes, Gavin, Panagiotaki, Georgia, Pawson, Chris·2009·Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

Abstract

Piaget (1932) and subsequent researchers have reported that young children's moral judgments are based more on the outcomes of actions than on the agents' intentions. The current study investigated whether negligence might also influence these judgments and explain children's apparent focus on outcome. Children (3-8 years of age) and adults (N=139) rated accidental actions in which the valences of intention, negligence, and outcome were varied systematically. Participants of all ages were influenced primarily by intention, and well-intentioned actions were also evaluated according to negligence and outcome. Only two young children based their judgments solely on outcome. It is suggested that previous studies have underestimated children's use of intention because outcome and negligence have been confounded. Negative consequences are considered to be important because children assume that they are caused by negligence. The findings indicate that young children can show sophisticated understanding of the roles of intention and negligence in moral judgments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.08.001

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • New research has shown that when children are given information about outcome, intentions and negligence, they are influenced strongly by intentions in making punishment judgments.

    “Additionally, new research has also shown that when children are given information about outcome, intentions and negligence, that they are influenced strongly by intentions in making punishment judgments (Nobes, et al., 2009).”

    From The accidental transgressor: Morally-relevant theory of mind (2011) · cites this paper as Nobes, et al., 2009

  • Children view punishment as more acceptable when a transgression has negative rather than neutral (or positive) intentions.

    “This is because children view punishment as more acceptable when a transgression has negative rather than neutral (or positive) intentions (Nobes, et al., 2009).”

    From The accidental transgressor: Morally-relevant theory of mind (2011) · cites this paper as Nobes, et al., 2009

  • Recent research suggests that children and adults do use information about an actor's negligence in making moral judgments and assessments of punishment acceptability.

    “Additionally, recent research suggests that children and adults do use information about an actor’s negligence in making moral judgments and assessments of punishment acceptability (Nobes, et al., 2009).”

    From The accidental transgressor: Morally-relevant theory of mind (2011) · cites this paper as Nobes, et al., 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nobes, G., Panagiotaki, G., & Pawson, C.
Affiliations
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • University of East London (GB)
Corresponding author
Nobes, Gavin
Venue
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-12
Volume
104
Issue
4
Pages
382-397
ISSN
0022-0965 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2148468027
Cited by
136
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
Keywords
moral judgment, children's moral reasoning, intention, negligence, outcomes, accidental actions, moral valence, developmental differences, blame attribution
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Morals, Motivation, Social Perception, Intention, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review