Research on children's developing moral cognition has mostly focused on their evaluation of, and reasoning about, others' intrinsically harmful (non-)verbal actions (e.g., hitting, lying). But assertions may have morally relevant (intended or unintended) consequences, too. For instance, if someone wrongly claims that “This water is clean!”, such an incorrect representation of reality may have harmful consequences to others. In two experiments, we investigated preschoolers' evaluation of others' morally relevant factual claims. In Experiment 1, children witnessed a puppet making incorrect assertions (...) that would lead to harm or to no harm. In Experiment 2, incorrect assertions would always lead to harm, but the puppet either intended the harm to occur or not. Children evaluated the puppet’s factual claim more negatively when they anticipated harmful versus harmless consequences (Experiment 1) and when the puppet’s intention was bad versus good over and above harmful consequences (Experiment 2). These findings suggest that preschoolers’ normative understanding is not limited to evaluating others’ intrinsically harmful transgressions, but also entails an appreciation of the morally relevant consequences of, and intentions underlying, others’ factual claims. (shrink)

When we hear about a transgression, we may consider whether the perpetrator’s individual circumstances make their transgression more understandable or excusable. Mitigating circumstances may reduce the severity of punishment that is deemed appropriate, both intuitively and legally. But importantly, in courts of public opinion and of law, mitigating information is typically presented only after information about a perpetrator’s transgression. We explore whether this sequence influences the force of mitigating evidence. Specifically, in two studies, we examined whether presenting evidence about a (...) perpetrator’s background before or after evidence of their violation influenced how severely U.S. participants punished perpetrators. In Study 1 (N = 132), evidence about the perpetrator’s mitigating circumstances reduced punishment only when it was presented before evidence about the perpetrator’s violation. Study 2 (N = 316) additionally revealed this moderating effect of presentation order across a variety of premeditated and impulsive violations. These findings are consistent with person-centered theories of punishment and with the Story Model of adjudication. (shrink)

This paper assesses two accounts of what it means to have a moral responsibility. According to the desert account, moral responsibility amounts to deserving credit or blame for doing or failing to do things. According to an alternative theory, the demand account, moral responsibility amounts to being subject to a moral requirement, such as an obligation or duty. On this account, moral responsibility identifies the presence of a moral demand that may or may not be accompanied by desert. Experiments are (...) conducted to test these accounts in ordinary moral judgment. Results indicate that moral judgment has both a demand and a desert function, that responsibility can pattern with the demand function, and that responsibilities are attributed without blame, criticism, or punishment when several determinants of moral judgment, such as conscious awareness, intention, belief, and neurodeterminism are manipulated. Results also suggest that having a responsibility is distinguished from being responsible for something, that the latter can pattern with the desert function, and that paradoxically, one can have a responsibility that one is not responsible for. These findings advance our understanding of moral responsibility, the processes underlying moral judgment in moral psychology, and conceptual clarity in moral philosophy. (shrink)