# How does reasoning influence intentionality attribution in the case of side effects?

**Authors:** Nicola Matteucci Armandi Avogli Trotti, Micaela Maria Zucchelli, Andrea Pavan, Laura Piccardi, Raffaella Nori

PMC · DOI: 10.1007/s10339-025-01300-w · Cognitive Processing · 2025-08-21

## TL;DR

This study shows that how people reason affects how they judge whether negative side effects are intentional, with careful reasoning reducing bias.

## Contribution

The study identifies that deliberative reasoning styles and longer response times reduce bias in intentionality attribution for negative side effects.

## Key findings

- A more deliberative reasoning style reduces bias in attributing intentionality to negative side effects.
- Longer response times are associated with reduced bias in intentionality judgments.
- Reasoning styles and response times mediate how people balance mental states and consequences in moral judgments.

## Abstract

To evaluate others’ actions objectively, one must integrate the actor’s mental states with the potential consequences of his actions. However, consequences can distort the perception of intentionality. The Knobe effect, or “side-effect effect,” demonstrates that individuals attribute greater intentionality to negative than positive foreseen yet unintended side effects. This study explores how reasoning styles and abilities influence these judgments. A sample of 172 college students completed validated reasoning style questionnaires, including the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI) and the Actively Open-Minded Thinking scale (AOT), a syllogistic reasoning task, and scenario-based tasks in a randomized, between-subjects design (negative vs. positive side effect). Our findings reveal that a more deliberative reasoning style and longer response times both reduce bias in attributing intentionality to negative side effects, highlighting two distinct pathways through which response times mediate the influence of reasoning style on reducing biased judgments. We explore how reasoning affects our attributions of intentionality leading to a more balanced consideration of an actor’s mental state and the consequences in moral judgment.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10339-025-01300-w.

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** neurological or psychiatric disorders (MESH:D001523), REI-R (MESH:C580424)
- **Chemicals:** NO (MESH:D009614)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12860760/full.md

## Figures

1 figure with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12860760/full.md

## References

5 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12860760/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12860760