AI Article Synopsis
- Research indicates that moral judgments evolve as people age, with older adults (75+) being more critical of accidental harmful actions compared to younger individuals.
- This shift in evaluation is linked to older adults viewing the harmdoer's negligence as greater, leading to a stronger condemnation of the act.
- The study reveals that this perception of increased negligence is also tied to older adults believing that accidents are more likely to happen, impacting their moral assessments and suggesting a deeper cognitive process behind how older individuals judge morality.
Article Abstract
Research suggests that moral evaluations change during adulthood. Older adults (75+) tend to judge accidentally harmful acts more severely than younger adults do, and this age-related difference is in part due to the greater negligence older adults attribute to the accidental harmdoers. Across two studies (N = 254), we find support for this claim and report the novel discovery that older adults' increased attribution of negligence, in turn, is associated with a higher perceived likelihood that the accident would occur. We propose that, because older adults perceive accidents as more likely than younger adults do, they condemn the agents and their actions more and even infer that the agents' omission to exercise due care is intentional. These findings refine our understanding of the cognitive processes underpinning moral judgment in older adulthood and highlight the role of subjective probability judgments in negligence attribution.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13345 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!