Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0146167209345529v1
35/12/1687    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Plaks, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Fortune, J. L.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Plaks, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Fortune, J. L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Thoughts Versus Deeds: Distal and Proximal Intent in Lay Judgments of Moral Responsibility

Jason E. Plaks, Dr.*, Nicole K. McNichols, and Jennifer L. Fortune

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: plaks{at}psych.utoronto.ca.


   Abstract
The authors propose that two central ingredients in lay models of intentionality are (a) "distal intent" (the actor’s mind is focused on a broader goal) and (b) "proximal intent" (the actor’s mind is focused narrowly on the act itself). Study 1 established that participants rate an actor with both forms of intent more responsible than an actor with only one form of intent or neither form of intent. In Study 2, when the actor had only distal intent, participants with a high-level construal rated the actor more responsible than did those with a low-level construal. In Study 3, when the actor had only distal intent, participants primed with psychodynamic concepts rated the actor more responsible than did those primed with cognitive-control concepts. However, when the actor had only proximal intent, the effect reversed. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for the literatures on moral reasoning and law.

First published on September 2, 2009, doi:10.1177/0146167209345529

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2009;35:1687.

A more recent version of this article appeared on December 1, 2009


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?