Acting Intentionally and the Side-Effect Effect: Theory of Mind and Moral Judgment
Abstract
The concept of acting intentionally is an important nexus where theory of mind and moral judgment meet. Preschool children's judgments of intentional action show a valence-driven asymmetry. Children say that a foreseen but disavowed side effect is brought about “on purpose” when the side effect itself is morally bad, but not when it is morally good. This is the first demonstration in preschoolers that moral judgment influences judgments of whether something was done on purpose (as opposed to judgments of purpose influencing moral judgment). Judgments of intentionality are usually assumed to be purely factual. That these judgments are sometimes partly normative—even in preschoolers—challenges current understanding. Young children's judgments regarding foreseen side effects depend on whether the children process the idea that the character does not care about the side effect. As soon as preschoolers effectively process the theory-of-mind concept “not care that P,” children show the side-effect effect.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Moral cognition is thought to involve the representation of intentions and outcomes as well as vicariously experienced emotional states.
“moral cognition is thought to involve the representation of intentions and outcomes as well as (vicariously experienced) emotional states”
From Parsing the neural correlates of moral cognition: ALE meta-analysis on morality, theory of mind, and empathy (2012) · cites this paper as Leslie et al. 2006
Children's moral decisions regarding attributions of blame influence their interpretations of other's intentions (theory of mind).
“children’s moral decisions regarding attributions of blame influence their interpretations of other’s intentions (theory of mind).”
From The accidental transgressor: Morally-relevant theory of mind (2011) · cites this paper as Leslie, et al., 2006
Leslie, Knobe and colleagues have conducted research on the Side Effect Effect, which suggests that moral judgment may influence theory of mind in important ways.
“Leslie, Knobe and colleagues have conducted research on the Side Effect Effect, which suggests that moral judgment may influence theory of mind in important ways (Knobe, 2005; Leslie, et al., 2006; Pettit & Knobe, 2009).”
From The accidental transgressor: Morally-relevant theory of mind (2011) · cites this paper as Leslie, et al., 2006
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 330
- Authors
- Leslie, A. M., Knobe, J., & Cohen, A.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Leslie, Alan M.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-05
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 421-427
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2136900371
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 7.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- intentional action, side-effect effect, moral judgment, theory of mind, preschool children, normative judgment
- MeSH terms
- Affect, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Morals, Psychological Theory, Social Behavior, Intention
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