Deciding Without Intending

Alexandra Nolte; Wesley Buckwalter; David Rose; John Turri

doi:10.5334/joc.101

Figures & Tables

Experiment 1. Mean response overlaying distributions for decision and intent attributions (within-subjects) across two statement orders (between-subjects). Scales ran 1 (“disagree”)–7 (“agree”). Error bars show 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals.

Table 1

Experiment 1. Analysis of variance for the linear mixed model’s fixed effects.

	Sum of squares	Df1	Df2	F	p
Order	0.644	1	205	0.267	.606
Judgment	299.107	1	207	124.092	<.001
Sex	2.061	1	205	0.855	.356
Age	0.001	1	205	0.000	.985
Order:Judgment	31.164	1	207	12.929	<.000

Table 2

Experiment 1. Paired samples t-tests for decision and intent attributions in the two order conditions.

Order	estimate	95 CI low	95 CI high	df	t	p	d
Intend first	1.147	0.738	1.556	108	5.555	<.001	0.532
Decide first	2.240	1.796	2.684	99	10.005	<.001	1.001

Table 3

Experiment 1. Descriptive statistics for decision and intent attributions in the two order conditions, along with the results of one sample t-tests against the neutral midpoint (test-value = 4).

Order	Judgment	n	median	SD	mean	95 CI low	95 CI high	df	t	p	d
Intend first	intend	109	5	2.01	4.28	3.90	4.66	108	1.47	.14	0.14
Intend first	decide	109	6	1.65	5.43	5.09	5.75	108	9.04	<.001	0.87
Decide first	intend	100	3	1.81	3.63	3.26	4.00	99	–2.05	.04	–0.20
Decide first	decide	100	6	1.47	5.87	5.57	6.16	99	12.74	<.001	1.27

Experiment 2. Proportion of participants attributing intent and decision (within-subjects). Error bars show 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals.

Table 4

Experiment 2. Generalized linear model’s fixed effects.

term	estimate	std. error	z	p
(Intercept)	–17.270	6.433	–2.685	.007
Decide	7.577	2.463	3.076	.002
Female	0.148	2.716	0.054	.957
Age	–0.033	0.152	–0.216	.829

Table 5

Experiment 2. Descriptive statistics, binomial tests, and effect sizes for the two attributions.

Judgment	n	k	prop	95 CI low	95 CI high	test value	p	h
intend	104	7	.067	.033	.132	.5	<.001	–1.046
decide	104	12	.115	.067	.191	.5	<.001	–0.878

Table 6

Experiment 2. Counts of participants who made the four possible combinations of judgments (intent × decision: deny (= 0) or attribute (= 1)).

Intend	Decide	Frequency
0	0	91
1	0	1
0	1	6
1	1	6

Experiment 3. Proportion of participants attributing intent and decision (within-subjects). Error bars show 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals.

Table 7

Experiment 3. Generalized linear model’s fixed effects.

term	estimate	std. error	z	p.value
(Intercept)	–3.647	1.021	–3.571	<.001
Decide	2.895	0.630	4.598	<.001
Female	0.341	0.466	0.730	.465
Age	0.030	0.021	1.436	.151

Table 8

Experiment 3. Descriptive statistics, binomial tests, and effect sizes for the test items.

Judgment	n	k	prop	95 CI low	95 CI high	test value	p	h
decide	106	61	.575	.480	.665	.5	.145	0.152
intend	106	14	.132	.080	.210	.5	<.001	–0.827
responsible	106	80	.755	.665	.827	.5	<.001	0.535
want	106	7	.066	.032	.130	.5	<.001	–1.051
know	106	80	.755	.665	.827	.5	<.001	0.535
hired	106	1	.009	.002	.052	.5	<.001	–1.376

Table 9

Experiment 3. Counts of participants who made the four possible combinations of intent and decision: deny (= 0) or attribute (= 1).

Intend	Decide	Frequency
0	0	43
1	0	2
0	1	49
1	1	12

Experiment 4. Proportion of participants attributing intent, decision, and responsibility (within-subjects). Error bars show 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals.

Table 10

Experiment 4. Generalized linear model’s fixed effects.

Term	estimate	std. error	z	p.value
(Intercept)	2.006	0.593	3.382	.001
Decide	<.001	0.556	0.000	1
Emissions	–4.043	0.523	–7.735	<.001
Female	0.097	0.296	0.329	.742
Age	0.018	0.012	1.473	.141
Decide:Emissions	0.942	0.642	1.466	.143

Table 11

Experiment 4. Descriptive statistics, binomial tests, and effect sizes for the test items.

Judgment	Focus	n	k	prop	95 CI low	95 CI high	test value	p	h
decide	program	105	98	.933	.869	.967	.5	<.001	1.048
decide	emissions	105	43	.410	.320	.505	.5	.078	–0.182
intend	program	105	98	.933	.869	.967	.5	<.001	1.048
intend	emissions	105	23	.219	.151	.307	.5	<.001	–0.597
responsible	program	105	85	.810	.724	.873	.5	<.001	0.668
responsible	emissions	105	81	.771	.682	.841	.5	<.001	0.574

Table 12

Experiment 4. Counts of participants who made the four possible combinations of intent and decision: deny (= 0) or attribute (= 1).

Intend	Decide	Frequency
0	0	58
1	0	4
0	1	24
1	1	19

Experiment 5. Proportion of participants attributing intent, decision, and responsibility (within-subjects). Error bars show 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals.

Table 13

Experiment 5. Generalized linear mixed model’s fixed effects.

Term	estimate	std. error	z	p
(Intercept)	–0.793	0.685	–1.158	.247
Decide	1.683	0.281	5.989	<.001
Female	0.221	0.280	0.791	.429
Age	0.013	0.012	1.024	.306

Table 14

Experiment 5. Descriptive statistics, binomial tests, and effect sizes for the test items across all conditions.

Condition	Judgment	n	k	prop	conf.low	conf.high	test.prop	p	h
General	intend	52	27	.519	.376	.660	.5	.890	0.038
General	decide	52	42	.808	.675	.904	.5	<.001	0.663
Captain	intend	52	10	.192	.096	.325	.5	<.001	–0.663
Captain	decide	52	15	.288	.171	.431	.5	.003	–0.437
Wolf	intend	53	34	.642	.498	.769	.5	.053	0.287
Wolf	decide	53	45	.849	.724	.933	.5	<.001	0.773
Sunset	intend	53	26	.491	.351	.632	.5	1	–0.019
Sunset	decide	53	45	.849	.724	.933	.5	<.001	0.773
Robber	intend	51	27	.529	.385	.671	.5	.780	0.059
Robber	decide	51	44	.863	.737	.943	.5	<.001	0.812

Table 15

Experiment 5. Descriptive statistics, binomial tests, and effect sizes for the test items across all conditions.

Judgment	n	k	prop	95 CI low	95 CI high	test value	p	h
intend	261	124	.475	.413	.538	.5	.458	–0.050
decide	261	191	.732	.674	.785	.5	<.001	0.482

Table 16

Experiment 5. Counts of participants who made the four possible combinations of intent and decision: deny (= 0) or attribute (= 1).

Intend	Decide	Frequency
0	0	58
1	0	12
0	1	79
1	1	112