Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 235–258 | Cite as

A Knobe Effect for Belief Ascriptions

  • James R. Beebe


Knobe (Analysis 63:190-193, 2003a, Philosophical Psychology 16:309-324, 2003b, Analysis 64:181-187, 2004b) found that people are more likely to attribute intentionality to agents whose actions resulted in negative side-effects that to agents whose actions resulted in positive ones. Subsequent investigation has extended this result to a variety of other folk psychological attributions. The present article reports experimental findings that demonstrate an analogous effect for belief ascriptions. Participants were found to be more likely to ascribe belief, higher degrees of belief, higher degrees of rational belief, and dispositional belief to agents in central Knobe effect cases who bring about negative side-effects than to agents who bring about positive ones. These findings present a significant challenge to widely held views about the Knobe effect, since many explanations of it assume that agents in contrasting pairs of Knobe effect cases do not differ with respect to their beliefs. Participants were also found to be more confident that knowledge should be attributed than they were that belief or dispositional belief should be attributed. This finding strengthens the challenge that Myers-Schulz and Schwitzgebel (2013) have launched against the traditional view that knowledge entails belief.


Participant Response Rational Belief Belief Ascription Undergraduate College Student Harm Condition 
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.



Thanks to Maria Capolupo, Sean Carey, Mattias Carosella, Phillip Collins, Danielle Curtin, Rachel Pazda, Jordan Pirdy, and Paul Poenicke who served as research assistants on this project. Thanks also to Mark Alfano, two anonymous reviewers at The Review of Philosophy and Psychology, and audience members at Eindhoven University of Technology and the 2012 meeting of the Society for Exact Philosophy for helpful comments on previous drafts of this paper.


  1. Beebe, J.R., and W. Buckwalter. 2010. The epistemic side-effect effect. Mind & Language 25: 474–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beebe, J.R., and M. Jensen. 2012. Surprising connections between knowledge and action: The robustness of the epistemic side-effect effect. Philosophical Psychology 25: 689–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cova, F., and H. Naar. 2013. Side-effect effect without side effect: The pervasive impact of moral considerations on judgments of intentionality. Philosophical Psychology.Google Scholar
  4. Cushman, F., and A. Mele. 2007. Intentional action: Two-and-a-half folk concepts? In Experimental Philosophy, ed. J. Knobe and S. Nichols, 171–188. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Doris, J., J. Knobe, and R.L. Woolfolk. 2007. Variantism about responsibility. Philosophical Perspectives 21: 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hindriks, F. 2008. Intentional action and the praise-blame asymmetry. The Philosophical Quarterly 58: 630–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hsee, C.K. 1998. Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11: 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Knobe, J. 2003a. Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis 63: 190–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Knobe, J. 2003b. Intentional action in folk psychology: An experimental investigation. Philosophical Psychology 16: 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Knobe, J. 2004a. Folk psychology and folk morality: Response to critics. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24: 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Knobe, J. 2004b. Intention, intentional action and moral considerations. Analysis 64: 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knobe, J. 2006. The concept of intentional action: A case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies 130: 203–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Knobe, J. 2007. Reason explanation in folk psychology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Knobe, J. 2010. Person as scientist, person as moralist. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knobe, J., and A. Burra. 2006. The folk concepts of intention and intentional action: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cognition and Culture 6: 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knobe, J., and J. Doris. 2010. Responsibility. In J. Doris and the Moral Psychology Research Group (Eds.), The Handbook of Moral Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321-54.Google Scholar
  17. Knobe, J., and G. Mendlow. 2004. The good, the bad and the blameworthy. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24: 252–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lanteri, A. 2012. Three-and-a-half folk concepts of intentional action. Philosophical Studies 158: 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leslie, A.M., J. Knobe, and A. Cohen. 2006. Acting intentionally and the side-effect effect: Theory of mind and moral judgment. Psychological Science 17: 421–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Machery, E. 2008. The folk concept of intentional action: Philosophical and experimental issues. Mind & Language 23: 165–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCann, H. 2005. Intentional action and intending: Recent empirical studies. Philosophical Psychology 18: 737–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mele, A. 2006. The folk concept of intentional action: A commentary. Journal of Cognition and Culture 6: 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mele, A., and F. Cushman. 2007. Intentional action, folk judgments, and stories: Sorting things out. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 184–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Myers-Schulz, B., and E. Schwitzgebel. 2013. Knowing that p without believing that p. Noûs.Google Scholar
  25. Nadelhoffer, T. 2004a. On praise, side effects, and folk ascriptions of intentionality. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24: 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nadelhoffer, T. 2004b. Blame, badness, and intentional action: A reply to Knobe and Mendlow. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24: 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nadelhoffer, T. 2006. Bad acts, blameworthy agents, and intentional actions: Some problems for jury impartiality. Philosophical Explorations 9: 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nichols, S., and J. Ulatowski. 2007. Intuitions and individual differences: The Knobe effect revisited. Mind & Language 22: 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pettit, D., and J. Knobe. 2009. The pervasive impact of moral judgment. Mind & Language 24: 586–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Phelan, M. 2013. Evidence that stakes don’t matter to evidence. Philosophical Psychology Google Scholar
  31. Phelan, M., and H. Sarkissian. 2008. The folk strike back: Or, why you didn’t do it intentionally, though it was bad and you knew it. Philosophical Studies 138: 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rose, D., and J. Schaffer. 2013. Knowledge entails dispositional belief. Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
  33. Sverdlik, S. 2004. Intentionality and moral judgments in commonsense thought about action. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24: 224–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tannenbaum, D., P. H. Ditto, and D. A. Pizarro. 2007. Different moral values produce different judgments of intentional action. Unpublished manuscript, University of California-Irvine.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations