Table 1
An example of the six versions of the same scenario adapted from Leloup et al. (2018).
| VERSION OF THE SCENARIO | NOT INTENTIONAL & NEUTRAL OUTCOME (‘NEUTRAL’) | NOT INTENTIONAL & HARMFUL OUTCOME (‘ACCIDENTAL HARM’) |
|---|---|---|
| Step 0. Context | Cindy and Valerie decide to have a drink after work. Valerie has to drive her car to go back home. Valerie asks Cindy to order her a non-alcoholic cocktail while she goes to the bathroom. Cindy orders a homemade cocktail for Valerie. | Cindy and Valerie decide to have a drink after work. Valerie has to drive her car to go back home. Valerie asks Cindy to order her a non-alcoholic cocktail while she goes to the bathroom. Cindy orders a homemade cocktail for Valerie. |
| Step 1. Intent | Cindy thought the homemade cocktail was not alcoholic. | Cindy thought the homemade cocktail was not alcoholic. |
| Step 2. Outcome | Valerie is in condition to drive and does not have any accident on the way back home. | Valerie is not in condition to drive and has an accident on the way back home. |
| VERSION OF THE SCENARIO | INTENTIONAL & NEUTRAL OUTCOME (‘ATTEMPTED HARM’) | INTENTIONAL & HARMFUL OUTCOME (‘INTENTIONAL HARM’) |
| Step 0. Context | Cindy and Valerie decide to have a drink after work. Valerie has to drive her car to go back home. Valerie asks Cindy to order her a non-alcoholic cocktail while she goes to the bathroom. Cindy orders a homemade cocktail for Valerie. | Cindy and Valerie decide to have a drink after work. Valerie has to drive her car to go back home. Valerie asks Cindy to order her a non-alcoholic cocktail while she goes to the bathroom. Cindy orders a homemade cocktail for Valerie. |
| Step 1. Intent | Cindy thought the homemade cocktail was alcoholic. | Cindy thought the homemade cocktail was alcoholic. |
| Step 2. Outcome | Valerie is in condition to drive and does not have any accident on the way back home. | Valerie is not in condition to drive and has an accident on the way back home. |
| VERSION OF THE SCENARIO | INTENTIONAL & NOT CAUSED HARMFUL OUTCOME (‘NON-CAUSED BUT INTENTIONAL HARM’) | NOT INTENTIONAL & NOT CAUSED HARMFUL OUTCOME (‘NON-CAUSED & NON-INTENTIONAL HARM’) |
| Step 0. Context | Cindy and Valerie decide to have a drink after work. Valerie has to drive her car to go back home. Valerie asks Cindy to order her a non-alcoholic cocktail while she goes to the bathroom. Cindy orders a homemade cocktail for Valerie. | Cindy and Valerie decide to have a drink after work. Valerie has to drive her car to go back home. Valerie asks Cindy to order her a non-alcoholic cocktail while she goes to the bathroom. Cindy orders a homemade cocktail for Valerie. |
| Step 1. Intent | Cindy thought the homemade cocktail was alcoholic. | Cindy thought the homemade cocktail was not alcoholic. |
| Step 2. Outcome | Valerie is in condition to drive but she hits an animal on the road and has an accident. | Valerie is in condition to drive but she hits an animal on the road and has an accident. |
[i] Note: The first four versions of the scenario (i.e., Neutral; Accidental Harm; Attempted Harm; Intentional Harm) were kept unaltered from the original material (Samson & Leloup, 2018). The last two were created within the same logic but adapted according to the model proposed by Cushman (2008, Experiment 3).
Figure 1
Schematic procedure of the current mouse-tracking paradigm.
Note: The mouse pointer was not displayed during the trials but was included here in the figure for illustrative purposes.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for judgments of punishment in steps 1 and 2 across conditions.
| CONDITION | JUDGMENTS IN STEP 1 | JUDGMENTS IN STEP 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| INTENT | OUTCOME | M (SE) | M (SE) |
| Intentional | Caused | 4.07 (0.12) | 4.56 (0.12) |
| Not Caused | 3.96 (0.12) | 3.50 (0.12) | |
| Neutral | 4.01 (0.12) | 3.19 (0.13) | |
| Non-intentional | Caused | 1.96 (0.12) | 2.77 (0.13) |
| Not Caused | 1.86 (0.11) | 1.97 (0.12) | |
| Neutral | 1.89 (0.11) | 1.47 (0.11) | |
[i] Note: Judgments in step 1 correspond to judgments of punishment when only intent was available. Judgments in step 2, when both intent and outcome were available. Higher scores (on a 0–6 range) reflect more severe judgments of punishment.
Figure 2
Judgments of punishment in step 1 (a) and in step 2 (b) depending on intent and outcome.
Note: Judgments in step 1 correspond to judgments of punishment when intent only was available; judgments in step 2, when both intent and outcome were available. Error bars represent SE.
Figure 3
Effects of intent, outcome, causality, and their interactions depending on the time course in step 1 (a) and in step 2 (b).
Note: Y-coordinates were rescaled between 0 (less severe) and 6 (more severe), so that results at the end of trajectories match the judgment scale of Figure 2. Error bars represent SE.