Research Article

Small-scale societies exhibit fundamental variation in the role of intentions in moral judgment

H. Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Alyssa N. Crittenden, Daniel M. T. Fessler, Simon Fitzpatrick, Michael Gurven, Joseph Henrich, Martin Kanovsky, Geoff Kushnick, Anne Pisor, Brooke A. Scelza, Stephen Stich, Chris von Rueden, Wanying Zhao, and Stephen Laurence
PNAS April 26, 2016 113 (17) 4688-4693; first published March 28, 2016; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1522070113

  1. Edited by Douglas L. Medin, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, and approved February 23, 2016 (received for review November 8, 2015)

See related content:

Article Figures & SI

Figures

  • Fig. 1.
    Fig. 1.

    Study populations and sample characteristics.

  • Fig. 2.
    Fig. 2.

    Intentions Bank: summaries of effects of High- vs. Low-Intent manipulation across societies (A and B) and scenarios (C). (A) Mean difference between High- and Low-Intent conditions for three different judgment variables (Badness, Punishment, Reputation). Societies are shown in ascending order of mean difference between High and Low Intent. (B) Mean severity of judgments for High-Intent and Low-Intent conditions, question items pooled (Badness, Punishment, Reputation). Societies are shown in descending order of mean severity of judgment, High and Low Intent pooled. (C) Mean severity of judgments by Scenario for High- vs. Low-Intent conditions, societies pooled. Scenarios are shown in descending order of mean severity of judgment, High and Low Intent pooled. All judgments on a five-point scale, +2 to −2: +2, very bad; 0, neutral; −2, very good. Bars indicate 95% CI. n = 322.

  • Fig. 3.
    Fig. 3.

    Intentions Bank: interactions between Society, Scenario, and High- vs. Low-Intent manipulation. Points show mean severity of moral judgments (Badness, Punishment, Reputation) on a five-point scale, +2 to −2: +2, very bad; 0, neutral; −2, very good. Bars indicate 95% CI. n = 322. Scenarios ordered Left to Right in descending order of effect size of amount of variance contributed to effects of High vs. Low Intent on moral judgments across societies.

  • Fig. 4.
    Fig. 4.

    Mean judgments of severity of Victim Outcome and Victim Reaction by Scenario, pooled across societies. Bars indicate 95% CI. n = 322.

  • Fig. 5.
    Fig. 5.

    Mitigating Factors Bank: effects of mitigating factors across societies. Bars show mean severity of judgments for six mitigating factors conditions, question items pooled (Badness, Punishment, Reputation). Societies are shown in descending order of mean severity of judgment (across mitigating factors), and mitigating factors are shown in descending order of mean severity of judgment (across societies). All judgments on a five-point scale, +2 to −2: +2, very bad; 0, neutral; −2, very good. Bars indicate 95% CI. n = 322.

Tables

  • Table 1.

    Parameters of best-fit ordered logit models for Intentions Bank

    Intentions BankEstimateexp(β)VarianceSDSEP
    Fixed effects
     High vs. Low Intent1.625.050.428<0.001
     Sex (1 = male)−0.2091.230.1230.09
    Random effects
     Society1.051.03
     Scenario0.8480.921
     Subject0.8070.898
     Scenario × Society0.6380.799
     High vs. Low Intent × Society0.260.51
     High vs. Low Intent × Scenario0.250.501
     Question item0.0650.255

    • Effects are reported in descending order of effect size within effect type (fixed, random).

  • Table 2.

    Parameters of best-fit ordered logit models for Mitigating Factors Bank

    Mitigating Factors BankEstimateexp(β)VarianceSDSEP
    Fixed effects
     Sex (1 = male)−0.261.300.1730.133
    Random effects
     Mitigating Factor3.131.77
     Subject1.61.27
     Society × Mitigating0.7250.851
     Society0.3690.608
     Question item0.06850.262

    • Effects are reported in descending order of effect size within effect type (fixed, random).

Data supplements

Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Request Permissions
Intentions and moral judgment across societies
H. Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Alyssa N. Crittenden, Daniel M. T. Fessler, Simon Fitzpatrick, Michael Gurven, Joseph Henrich, Martin Kanovsky, Geoff Kushnick, Anne Pisor, Brooke A. Scelza, Stephen Stich, Chris von Rueden, Wanying Zhao, Stephen Laurence
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2016, 113 (17) 4688-4693; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1522070113
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 113 (17)
Table of Contents

Submit

Article Classifications

  • Social Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences

Jump to section

You May Also be Interested in

Large piece of gold
News Feature: Tracing gold's cosmic origins
Astronomers thought they’d finally figured out where gold and other heavy elements in the universe came from. In light of recent results, they’re not so sure.
Image credit: Science Source/Tom McHugh.

Similar Articles