Abstract
People attribute purposes in both mundane and profound ways—such as when thinking
about the purpose of a knife and the purpose of a life. In three studies (total N = 13,720
observations from N = 3,430 participants), we tested whether these seemingly very
different forms of purpose attributions might actually involve the same cognitive
processes. We examined the impacts of four factors on purpose attributions in six
domains (artifacts, social institutions, animals, body parts, sacred objects, and human
lives). Study 1 manipulated what items in each domain were originally created for (original
design) and how people currently use them (present practice). Study 2 manipulated
whether items are good at achieving a goal (effectiveness) and whether the goal itself is
good (morality). We found effects of each factor in every domain. However, whereas
morality and effectiveness had remarkably similar effects across domains, the effects of
original design and present practice differed substantially. Finally, Study 3 revealed that,
within domains, the effects of original design and present practice depend on which
entities design and use items. These results reveal striking similarities in purpose
attributions across domains and suggest that certain entities are treated as authorities
over the purposes of particular items.