How does reasoning influence intentionality attribution in the case of side effects?

To evaluate others’ actions objectively, one must integrate the actor’s mental states with the potential consequences of their actions. However, consequences can often distort our perception of intentionality. A well-known phenomenon in cognitive science, the Knobe effect (or “side-effect effect”), demonstrates that individuals tend to attribute greater intentionality to negative side effects than to positive ones, even when both are foreseen but unintended.

A new study titled "How does reasoning influence intentionality attribution in the case of side effects?" by Nicola Matteucci Armandi Avogli Trotti, Micaela Maria Zucchelli, Andrea Pavan, Laura Piccardi, and Raffaella Nori, recently published in Cognitive Processing, delves into the cognitive mechanisms behind this bias.

Understanding the Research Objectives

The core of the study explores how individual reasoning styles and cognitive abilities influence moral judgments. The researchers aimed to determine if analytical thinking could mitigate the inherent bias seen in the Knobe effect.

By analyzing how we process information, the study provides a deeper look into the "why" behind our moral evaluations of others' behaviors.

Methodology: How the Study Was Conducted

The research involved a sample of 172 college students who participated in a randomized, between-subjects design. The participants were evaluated based on:

Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI): To measure preference for analytical vs. intuitive thinking.
Actively Open-Minded Thinking scale (AOT): To assess the tendency to consider alternative explanations.
Syllogistic Reasoning Task: To evaluate logical processing abilities.
Scenario-based Tasks: Participants judged scenarios involving either negative or positive side effects.

Key Findings: The Power of Deliberation

The findings reveal two distinct pathways through which biased judgments are reduced:

1. The Role of Deliberative Reasoning Style

Participants with a more deliberative reasoning style showed a significant reduction in the bias typically associated with negative side effects. These individuals were less likely to automatically blame an actor for a negative outcome that was unintended.

2. The Impact of Response Times

The study found that longer response times correlated with more balanced judgments. This suggests that "slowing down" the decision-making process allows for a more comprehensive integration of the actor’s mental state rather than focusing solely on the negative consequence.

Implications for Moral Judgment

This research highlights how reasoning affects our attributions of intentionality, leading to a more balanced consideration of an actor’s mental state and the actual consequences.

By understanding that deliberative thinking can "buffer" the side-effect effect, we can better understand the cognitive foundations of justice, ethics, and social interaction.

Reference and Source

For more details, read the full article in Cognitive Processing:
Nicola Matteucci Armandi Avogli Trotti, Micaela Maria Zucchelli, Andrea
Pavan, Laura Piccardi, and Raffaella Nori. How does reasoning influence intentionality attribution in the case of side effects? Cogn Process (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-025-01300-w