Intentional Harms Are Worse, Even When They’re Not

Daniel L. Ames, Susan T. Fiske

Psychological Science · 2013 · 165 citations · 27 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

Societies aim to mitigate harm, yet limited resources mean addressing one wrong often leaves another unaddressed. The study investigates whether people’s heightened sensitivity to intent leads to disproportionate calibration of responses to harm. Across studies, participants judged identical harms as worse when intended—a bias fully mediated by blame motivation—suggesting intentional harms are overemphasized at the expense of unintentional ones.

Abstract

People and societies seek to combat harmful events. However, because resources are limited, every wrong righted leaves another wrong left unchecked. Responses must therefore be calibrated to the magnitude of the harm. One underappreciated factor that affects this calibration may be people’s oversensitivity to intent. Across a series of studies, people saw intended harms as worse than unintended harms, even though the two harms were identical. This harm-magnification effect occurred for both subjective and monetary estimates of harm, and it remained when participants were given incentives to be accurate. The effect was fully mediated by blame motivation. People may therefore focus on intentional harms to the neglect of unintentional (but equally damaging) harms.

References

27