CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,046Free Will and AgencySyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationCategorization, perception, and language

Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language

Knobe, J.·2003·Analysis
DOI 10.1093/analys/63.3.190
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There has been a long-standing dispute in the philosophical literature about the conditions under which a behavior counts as 'intentional.' Much of the debate turns on questions about the use of certain words and phrases in ordinary language. The present paper investigates these questions empirically, using experimental techniques to investigate people's use of the relevant words and phrases. g

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/analys/63.3.190

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Participants were much more likely to blame the chairman in the harm condition than to praise him in the help condition.

    “Moreover, participants were much more likely to blame the chairman in the harm condition than to praise him in the help condition.”

    From Exploring the psychology of LLMs’ moral and legal reasoning (2024) · cites this paper as Knobe, 2003

  • Knobe (2003) found that 82% of participants in the harm condition said the chairman acted intentionally, compared to only 23% in the help condition.

    “Strikingly, 82% of participants in the harm condition said that the chairman acted intentionally, compared to only 23% in the help condition.”

    From Exploring the psychology of LLMs’ moral and legal reasoning (2024) · cites this paper as Knobe, 2003

  • In the Knobe (2003) positive-side-effect condition with reversed answer order, only 3.5% of surveyed GPT runs (18) gave the original 'correct answer' of 'A Lot of Praise'; 0.2% (1) answered second-highest; 96.3% (501) answered 'No Praise'.

    “This resulted in only 3.5% of surveyed GPT runs giving the original “correct answer” of ‘A Lot of Praise’ (a total of just 18 runs), 0.2% of GPT runs answering with the second-highest level of praise (a total of just one GPT run), and the remaining 96.3% of GPT runs answering with ‘No Praise’ (a total of 501 runs).”

    From Diminished diversity-of-thought in a standard large language model (2024) · cites this paper as Knobe (2003)

  • In the Knobe (2003) survey, 100% of surveyed GPT-3.5 runs described the negative side effect as deserving the highest degree of blame ('a lot of blame').

    “Similarly, 100% of surveyed GPT runs described the negative side effect as deserving of the highest degree of blame, or “a lot of blame.””

    From Diminished diversity-of-thought in a standard large language model (2024) · cites this paper as Knobe (2003)

  • In the Knobe (2003) survey, 99.2% of surveyed GPT-3.5 runs (516 of 520) described the positive side effect as deserving the highest degree of praise ('a lot of praise'); 0.2% (1) second-highest; 0.6% (3) lowest ('no praise').

    “Specifically, 99.2% of surveyed GPT runs (a total of 516) described the positive side effect as deserving of the highest degree of praise, or “a lot of praise”; 0.2% of them (a total of just one) described it as deserving of the second-highest degree of praise; and 0.6% of them (a total of three) described it as deserving of the lowest degree of praise, or “no praise.””

    From Diminished diversity-of-thought in a standard large language model (2024) · cites this paper as Knobe (2003)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Knobe, J.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
Knobe, J.
ORCID
Knobe, J.
Venue
Analysis
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2003-07-01
Volume
63
Issue
3
Pages
190-194
ISSN
  • 0003-2638 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8284
DOI
10.1093/analys/63.3.190
OpenAlex
W3121819056
Cited by
1,046
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 67 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 86
FWCI
6.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • CogPrints (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
intentional action, adverse effects, ordinary language, intentionalism, experimental philosophy

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