IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0070759.html

Whose Mind Matters More—The Agent or the Artist? An Investigation of Ethical and Aesthetic Evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Angelina Hawley-Dolan
  • Liane Young

Abstract

Theory of mind, the capacity for reasoning about mental states such as beliefs and intentions, represents a critical input to ethical and aesthetic evaluations. Did the agent cause harm on purpose? Were those brushstrokes intentional? The current study investigates theory of mind for moral and artistic judgments within the same paradigm. In particular, we target the role of intent for two kinds of judgments: “objective” judgments of quality and “subjective” judgments of preference or liking. First, we show that intent matters more for objective versus subjective judgments in the case of ethics and aesthetics. Second, we show that, overall, intent matters more for ethical versus aesthetic evaluations. These findings suggest that an “objective-subjective” dimension describes judgments across both domains, and that observers assign more weight to the mind of the moral agent than the mind of the artist when making the relevant evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Angelina Hawley-Dolan & Liane Young, 2013. "Whose Mind Matters More—The Agent or the Artist? An Investigation of Ethical and Aesthetic Evaluations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-7, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0070759
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070759
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070759
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070759&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0070759?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric Luis Uhlmann & David A. Pizarro & David Tannenbaum & Peter H. Ditto, 2009. "The motivated use of moral principles," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 479-491, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mark Kelman & Tamar Admati Kreps, 2014. "Playing with Trolleys: Intuitions About the Permissibility of Aggregation," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 197-226, June.
    2. Giorgia Ponsi & Maria Serena Panasiti & Salvatore Maria Aglioti & Marco Tullio Liuzza, 2017. "Right-wing authoritarianism and stereotype-driven expectations interact in shaping intergroup trust in one-shot vs multiple-round social interactions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    4. Kimmo Eriksson & Brent Simpson & Pontus Strimling, 2019. "Political double standards in reliance on moral foundations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 440-454, July.
    5. Hugo Mercier, 2011. "What good is moral reasoning?," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 10(2), pages 131-148, December.
    6. Mata, André & Vaz, André & Mendonça, Bernardo, 2022. "Deliberate ignorance in moral dilemmas: Protecting judgment from conflicting information," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    7. Matthew L. Stanley & Siyuan Yin & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019. "A reason-based explanation for moral dumbfounding," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(2), pages 120-129, March.
    8. Malmio, Irja, 2023. "Ethics as an enabler and a constraint – Narratives on technology development and artificial intelligence in military affairs through the case of Project Maven," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Asensio, Omar Isaac & Delmas, Magali A., 2016. "The dynamics of behavior change: Evidence from energy conservation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PA), pages 196-212.
    10. Chen, Daniel L., 2016. "Markets, Morality, and Economic Growth: Competition Affects Utilitarian Judgment," IAST Working Papers 16-45, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    11. Netta Barak-Corre & Chia-Jung Tsay & Fiery Cushman & Max H. Bazerman, 2018. "If You’re Going to Do Wrong, At Least Do It Right: Considering Two Moral Dilemmas at the Same Time Promotes Moral Consistency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1528-1540, April.
    12. Laura J. Noval & Morela Hernandez, 2019. "The Unwitting Accomplice: How Organizations Enable Motivated Reasoning and Self-Serving Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(3), pages 699-713, July.
    13. Pamsy P. Hui & Warren C. K. Chiu & Elvy Pang & John Coombes & Doreen Y. P. Tse, 2022. "Seeing Through and Breaking Through: The Role of Perspective Taking in the Relationship Between Creativity and Moral Reasoning," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 57-69, September.
    14. Michał Białek & Jonathan Fugelsang & Ori Friedman, 2018. "Choosing victims: Human fungibility in moral decision-making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(5), pages 451-457, September.
    15. Paharia, Neeru & Vohs, Kathleen D. & Deshpandé, Rohit, 2013. "Sweatshop labor is wrong unless the shoes are cute: Cognition can both help and hurt moral motivated reasoning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 81-88.
    16. Lars Hall & Petter Johansson & Thomas Strandberg, 2012. "Lifting the Veil of Morality: Choice Blindness and Attitude Reversals on a Self-Transforming Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-8, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0070759. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.