Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 485–503 | Cite as

It’s the Knobe Effect, Stupid!

How (and How Not) to Explain the Side-Effect Effect
  • Hanno Sauer


People asymmetrically attribute various agential features such as intentionality, knowledge, or causal impact to other agents when something of normative significance is at stake. I will argue that three questions are of primary interest in the debate about this effect. A methodological question about how to explain it at all; a substantive question about how to explain it correctly: and a normative question about whether to explain it in terms of an error or a legitimate judgmental pattern. The problem, I argue, is that these three questions are difficult to disentangle. I propose a solution to this problem, and show how it accounts for the most recent data regarding the effect.


True Belief Moral Consideration Causal Impact Normative Question Methodological Question 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alfano, M., J. Beebe, and B. Robinson. 2012. The centrality of belief and reflection in knobe-effect cases. The Monist 95(2): 264–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alicke, M.D. 1992. Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(3): 368–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alicke, M.D. 2000. Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin 126(4): 556–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beebe, J.R., and W. Buckwalter. 2010. The epistemic side-effect effect. Mind & Language 25(4): 474–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berker, S. 2009. The normative insignificance of neuroscience. Philosophy & Public Affairs 37(4): 293–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cosmides, L. 1989. The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition 31: 187–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cova, Florian. 2013. Unconsidered intentional actions: an assessment of Scaife and Webber’s ‘consideration Hypothesis’. Journal of Moral Philosophy 1: 1–22.Google Scholar
  8. Cova, F., and H. Naar. 2012a. Side-effect effect without side effects: the pervasive impact of moral considerations on judgments of intentionality. Philosophical Psychology 25(6): 837–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cova, F., and H. Naar. 2012b. Testing Sripada’s deep self model. Philosophical Psychology 25(5): 647–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cova, F., E. Dupoux, and P. Jacob. 2012. On doing things intentionally. Mind and Language 27(4): 378–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cushman, F., J. Knobe, et al. 2008. Moral appraisals affect doing/allowing judgments. Cognition 108: 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dalbauer, Nikolaus, and Andreas Hergovich. 2013. Is what is worse more likely?—the probabilistic explanation of the epistemic side-effect effect. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4(4): 639–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Damasio, A. 1994. Descartes’ error. Emotion, reason, and the human brain. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Gigerenzer, G. 2007. Gut feelings. Short cuts to better decision making. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. Greene, J.D. 2008. The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In Moral psychology. Vol. 3. The neuroscience of morality: emotion, brain disorders, and development, ed. W. Sinnott-Armstrong. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hindriks, F. 2008. Intentional action and the praise-blame asymmetry. The Philosophical Quarterly 58(233): 630–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hindriks, F. (forthcoming). Normativity in Action. How to Explain the Knobe Effect and Its Relatives. Mind & Language. Google Scholar
  18. Holton, R. 2010. Norms and the knobe effect. Analysis 70(3): 417–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D., A. Tversky, et al. (eds.). 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Knobe, J. 2003. Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis 63: 190–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knobe, J. 2004. Folk psychology and folk morality: response to critics. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24(2): 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knobe, J. 2006. The concept of intentional action: a case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies 130: 203–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knobe, J. 2010. Person as scientist, person as moralist. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(4): 315–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knobe, J., and A. Burra. 2006. The folk concepts of intention and intentional action. A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cognition and Culture 6(1–2): 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knobe, J., and B. Fraser. 2008. Causal judgment and moral judgment: Two experiments. In Moral psychology, vol. 2, ed. W. Sinnott-Armstrong, 441–448. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Knobe, J., and G. Mendlow. 2004. The good, the bad and the blameworthy: understanding the role of evaluative reasoning in folk psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24(2): 252–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Machery, E. 2008. The folk concept of intentional action. Mind & Language 23(2): 165–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mallon, R. 2008. Knobe versus machery: testing the trade‐off hypothesis. Mind & Language 23(2): 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nadelhoffer, T. 2006. Bad acts, blameworthy agents, and intentional actions: some problems for juror impartiality. Philosophical Explorations 9(2): 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nichols, S., and J. Knobe. 2007. Moral responsibility and determinism: the cognitive science of folk intuitions. Noûs 41(4): 663–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nichols, Shaun, and Joseph Ulatowski. 2007. Intuitions and individual differences: the knobe effect revisited. Mind and Language 22(4): 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pettit, D., and J. Knobe. 2009. The pervasive impact of moral judgment. Mind & Language 24(5): 586–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Phelan, M., and H. Sarkissian. 2009. Is the ‘trade‐off hypothesis’ worth trading for? Mind & Language 24(2): 164–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pinillos, N., N. Smith, et al. 2011. Philosophy’s new challenge: experiments and intentional action. Mind & Language 26(1): 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prinz, J. 2006. The emotional basis of moral judgments. Philosophical Explorations 9(1): 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robinson, B., Alfano, M., P. Stey (forthcoming). Reversing the side effect effect. The power of salient norms. Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
  38. Rose, D., J. Livengood, J. Sytsma, and E. Machery. 2012. Deep trouble for the deep self. Philosophical Psychology 25(5): 629–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sauer, H. 2012. Psychopaths and filthy desks: Are emotions necessary and sufficient for moral judgment? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15(1): 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sauer, H. & Bates, T. (forthcoming). Chairmen, Cocaine, and Car Crashes: The Knobe Effect as an Attribution Error. Journal of Ethics.Google Scholar
  41. Sripada, C.S. 2010. The deep self model and asymmetries in folk judgments about intentional action. Philosophical Studies 151: 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sripada, C.S., and S. Konrath. 2011. Telling more than we can know about intentional action. Mind & Language 26(3): 353–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Uttich, K., and T. Lombrozo. 2010. Norms inform mental state ascriptions: a rational explanation for the side-effect effect. Cognition 116: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Webber, Jonathan, and Robin Scaife. 2013. Intentional side-effects of action. Journal of Moral Philosophy 10(2): 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Young, L., F. Cushman, et al. 2006. Does emotion mediate the relationship between an action’s moral status and its intentional status? Neuropsychological evidence. Journal of Cognition and Culture 6(1–2): 265–278.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations