Interconnections Between Perceptions of Blame, Mind, and Moral Abilities

Theories of blame, mind, and moral attribution consider an individual’s perceived agency, operationalized in part as perceived intentionality and self-control. People with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may display social deficits and a greater tendency to engage in problem behavior (PB; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) than neurotypical (NT) people, which may lead people to perceive that individuals with ASD act less agentically. Study 1 shows that the mitigated perceived agency of people with ASD leads to mitigated blame attribution. In addition to perceived agency, theories of mind and moral attribution account for perceptions of an individual’s capacity to experience emotions, pleasure, and suffering. Based upon these forms of perception, Gray et al.’s (2007) theory of mind perception (TMP) states that minds are perceived along the dimensions of agency and experience. Similarly, Gray, Young, and Waytz’s (2012) theory of dyadic morality (TDM) states that a person’s moral status is perceived along the dimensions of moral agency and patiency. While these dimensional pairs are highly similar, the TMP states that its proposed dimensions are independent of each other while the TDM states that its proposed dimensions are inversely related. Studies 2 and 3 generated support for the prediction that these dimensions are independently related, as proposed by TMP, while the inverse relationship posited by the TDM did not receive support. PERCEPTIONS OF BLAME, MIND, AND MORAL ABILITIES 3 Interconnections between perceptions of blame, mind, and moral abilities Blame is a multi-faceted social phenomenon, used to set and affirm norms, and to evaluate events and agents (Malle, Guglielmo, & Monroe, 2014). As a moral judgment, the amount of blame attributed to individuals can have profound effects on their lives –for example, higher blame attribution leads to the assignment of more severe punishments (Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002). As a result, understanding the ways in which people attribute blame to others, and ensuring that the appropriate amount of blame is assigned, is integral to ensuring the fair and equitable treatment of individuals. Malle et al. (2014) have proposed a Path Model of Blame outlining the blame attribution process, and this model provides a thorough consideration of the various sub-components that influence blame attribution. Included in this model are considerations of an agent’s causality, intentionality, obligation to have acted otherwise (hereafter referred to as “obligation”), capacity to have acted otherwise (hereafter referred to as “capacity), and reasons for acting. These subcomponents are sequenced in this model, reflecting the intuitive process by which individuals assign blame: if an agent is determined to have acted intentionally, their reasons for acting are considered; if they were determined to have acted unintentionally, their obligation and capacity are considered. These judgments are made uniquely with regard to each novel norm-violation. For example, when an individual accidentally kills another person, their obligation and capacity are judged much differently than if they had accidentally knocked over a lamp. Yet, certain factors or identities may exert stable cross-situational effects on components of a path model. For example, children are typically assigned less blame for norm violations (e.g., making a hurtful comment) than adults. This differential blame attribution arises from a number of differences between children and adults. First, it is recognized that an understanding of norms is not innate, PERCEPTIONS OF BLAME, MIND, AND MORAL ABILITIES 4 and is rather learned by individuals as they develop (Jensen, Vaish, & Schmidt, 2014). Furthermore, individuals’ brains, and cognitive capacities, do not finish developing until their third decade of life (Gogtay et al., 2004), leading children to possess lower levels of self-control (Arain et al., 2013) and foresight (i.e., the ability to consider the long-term consequences of actions; Lewis, 1981) than adults. Due to these factors, most individuals would perceive that children act less intentionally than adults, and do not have the same obligation or capacity to avoid committing norm-violating actions as adults do. This recognition leads to mitigated blame attribution, which has in turn been codified into our legal system, such that children are typically sentenced much less harshly than adults an identical crime (American Bar Association, 2007). An individual’s age is only one factor that may exert such stable effects on blame judgments, though, and to ensure the equitable treatment of all people (e.g., in the context of criminal sentencing), one must recognize other such factors. One such factor is autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the characteristics of which may lead individuals to differentially attribute blame to a person with ASD, as compared to a neurotypical (NT) individual, when a norm violation was putatively related to ASD. Before addressing this possibility, though, I will further explain the path model in order to establish the theoretical framework in which I will be working. Then, I will address which aspects of ASD may affect the blame attribution process. Finally, I will consider how ASD may also affect the dehumanization process, which also takes into account many of the factors that drive the blame attribution process.