Reasoning supports forgiving accidental harms

Abstract People experience a strong conflict while evaluating actors who unintentionally harmed someone—her innocent intention exonerating her, while the harmful outcome incriminating her. Different people solve this conflict differently, suggesting the presence of dispositional moderators of the wa...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Indrajeet Patil, Bastien Trémolière
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/e88dbf2a757844be93240e0df60198c0
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:e88dbf2a757844be93240e0df60198c0
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:e88dbf2a757844be93240e0df60198c02021-12-02T16:14:16ZReasoning supports forgiving accidental harms10.1038/s41598-021-93908-z2045-2322https://doaj.org/article/e88dbf2a757844be93240e0df60198c02021-07-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93908-zhttps://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract People experience a strong conflict while evaluating actors who unintentionally harmed someone—her innocent intention exonerating her, while the harmful outcome incriminating her. Different people solve this conflict differently, suggesting the presence of dispositional moderators of the way the conflict is processed. In the present research, we explore how reasoning ability and cognitive style relate to how people choose to resolve this conflict and judge accidental harms. We conducted three studies in which we utilized varied reasoning measures and populations. The results showed that individual differences in reasoning ability and cognitive style predicted severity of judgments in fictitious accidental harms scenarios, with better reasoners being less harsh in their judgments. Internal meta-analysis confirmed that this effect was robust only for accidental harms. We discuss the importance of individual differences in reasoning ability in the assessment of accidental harms.Indrajeet PatilBastien TrémolièreNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-8 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Indrajeet Patil Bastien Trémolière Reasoning supports forgiving accidental harms
description	Abstract People experience a strong conflict while evaluating actors who unintentionally harmed someone—her innocent intention exonerating her, while the harmful outcome incriminating her. Different people solve this conflict differently, suggesting the presence of dispositional moderators of the way the conflict is processed. In the present research, we explore how reasoning ability and cognitive style relate to how people choose to resolve this conflict and judge accidental harms. We conducted three studies in which we utilized varied reasoning measures and populations. The results showed that individual differences in reasoning ability and cognitive style predicted severity of judgments in fictitious accidental harms scenarios, with better reasoners being less harsh in their judgments. Internal meta-analysis confirmed that this effect was robust only for accidental harms. We discuss the importance of individual differences in reasoning ability in the assessment of accidental harms.
format	article
author	Indrajeet Patil Bastien Trémolière
author_facet	Indrajeet Patil Bastien Trémolière
author_sort	Indrajeet Patil
title	Reasoning supports forgiving accidental harms
title_short	Reasoning supports forgiving accidental harms
title_full	Reasoning supports forgiving accidental harms
title_fullStr	Reasoning supports forgiving accidental harms
title_full_unstemmed	Reasoning supports forgiving accidental harms
title_sort	reasoning supports forgiving accidental harms
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/e88dbf2a757844be93240e0df60198c0
work_keys_str_mv	AT indrajeetpatil reasoningsupportsforgivingaccidentalharms AT bastientremoliere reasoningsupportsforgivingaccidentalharms
_version_	1718384382895456256

Reasoning supports forgiving accidental harms

Ejemplares similares