School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Jun;25(3):1170-1177. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1312-x.
Previous work has demonstrated a "side-effect effect," such that intentionality is more likely to be attributed to agents who bring about negatively valenced as opposed to positively valenced side effects. The rational-scientist model explains this by suggesting that norm-violating side effects are more informative for inferring intentionality than norm-conforming side effects. In the present study we reexamined this account, addressing limitations of previous empirical tests (e.g., Uttich & Lombrozo, Cognition 116: 87-100, 2010). Side-effect valence and norm status were manipulated factorially, enabling an examination of the impact of norm status on intentionality judgments in both positively and negatively valenced side effects. Additionally, the impact of side-effect norm status on the perceived valences of side effects and agents was examined. Effects of norm status were found for both positive and negative side effects. Violation of an ostensibly neutral norm led to negative perceptions of the side effect. However, a norm status effect on intentionality judgments persisted when these effects were controlled. These results support the view that the side-effect effect is the result of the rational use of social-cognitive evidence.
先前的研究已经证明了一种“副作用效应”，即与产生积极副作用的代理人相比，人们更倾向于将意图归因于产生消极副作用的代理人。理性-科学家模型通过提出违反规范的副作用比符合规范的副作用更能提供关于意图推断的信息，来解释这种现象。在本研究中，我们重新检验了这一说法，解决了先前实证研究的局限性（例如，Uttich & Lombrozo，Cognition 116: 87-100, 2010）。我们对副作用的效价和规范状态进行了因子操纵，从而可以在积极和消极副作用中检验规范状态对意图判断的影响。此外，还研究了副作用规范状态对副作用和代理人感知效价的影响。规范状态对正副作用都有影响。违反表面中立的规范会导致对副作用的负面看法。然而，当控制这些影响时，规范状态对意图判断的影响仍然存在。这些结果支持这样一种观点，即副作用效应是对社会认知证据的理性使用的结果。
