Advertisement

Differential effects of cognitive ability on mind agency and perceived innocence

  • Kenji NoguchiEmail author
  • Michael Mong
Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

The current study examined how different characters could be perceived as innocent and what factors could contribute to participants’ perception of innocence. Mind agency, which is the ability to exert cognitive control, could be a key factor for perceived innocence for different characters. Study 1 suggested that only an infant was perceived innocent when rated as having lower mind agency. Other characters such as a girl and animals were perceived innocent when they were described as having higher mind agency. Thus, the perception of innocence along with the relationship with mind agency depended on the target characters. The last two studies further showed that perceived innocence for an infant was negatively related with the capability of exerting mental control with the manipulations of both mind capability and thinking about innocence. Perceived innocence for human beings varies across human targets; cognitive ability to control behaviors matters for a girl and animals but not matter for infants. The findings of the study connote the two different views of humanness proposed by Haslam and colleagues (Haslam et al. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127, 2008): the inherited nature of humanness and uniquely human characteristics developed at later ages.

Keywords

Innocent Mind Perception Cognitive Control 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author has no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A. (2018). Discipline and desire: On the relative importance of willpower and purity in signaling virtue. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 220–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. P., Paladino, M. P., Rodriguez, R. T., Rodriguez, A. P., & Dovidio, J. F. (2004). Dimensions of “uniquely” and “nonuniquely” human emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Epley, N., & Waytz, A. (2010). Mind perception. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 498–541). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 404–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 505–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., & Bastian, B. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 937–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Bain, P., & Kashima, Y. (2006). Psychological essentialism, implicit theories, and intergroup relations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., Kashima, Y., & Bain, P. (2008). Attributing and denying humanness to others. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leslie, A. M., Knobe, J., & Cohen, A. (2006). Acting intentionally and the side-effect: Theory of mind and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17, 421–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and anlogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merriam-Webster. (2012). Innocent. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent. Accessed 14 Nov 2012.
  16. Oxford Dictionaries. (2012a). Innocent. Retrieved from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/innocent?region=us&q=innocent. Accessed 14 Nov 2012.
  17. Oxford Dictionaries. (2012b). Pure. Retrieved from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/pure?region=us&q=pure. Accessed 14 Nov 2012.
  18. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2006). Essentializing differences between women and men. Psychological Science, 17, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern MississippiLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations