Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Apr 28;11(4):e0154467.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154467. eCollection 2016.

Effects of Culture and Gender on Judgments of Intent and Responsibility

Jason E Plaks  1 , Jennifer L Fortune  2 , Lindie H Liang  3 , Jeffrey S Robinson  1
Affiliations

Effects of Culture and Gender on Judgments of Intent and Responsibility

Jason E Plaks et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Do different cultures hold different views of intentionality? In four studies, participants read scenarios in which the actor's distal intent (a focus on a broader goal) and proximal intent (a focus on the mechanics of the act) were manipulated. In Studies 1-2, when distal intent was more prominent in the actor's mind, North Americans rated the actor more responsible than did Chinese and South Asian participants. When proximal intent was more prominent, Chinese and South Asian participants, if anything, rated the actor more responsible. In Studies 3-4, when distal intent was more prominent, male Americans rated the actor more responsible than did female Americans. When proximal intent was more prominent, females rated the actor more responsible. The authors discuss these findings in relation to the literatures on moral reasoning and cultural psychology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. A representation of proximal and distal intent as independent dimensions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bratman ME. Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1987.
    1. Davidson D. Essays on actions and events. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1980.
    1. Malle BF, Knobe J. The folk concept of intentionality. J Expl Soc Psy, 1997; 33: 101 121.
    1. Guglielmo S, Malle BF. Can unintended side effects be intentional? Resolving a controversy over intentionality and morality. Pers Soc Psy Bull, 2011; 36: 1635–1647. - PubMed
    1. Laurin K, Plaks JE. Religion and punishment: Opposing influences of orthopraxy and orthodoxy on reactions to unintentional acts. Soc Psy Pers Sci, 2014; 5: 835–843.

LinkOut - more resources