title: “Replication of Study “When Ignorance Is No Excuse: Different Roles for Intent Across Moral Domains” by Young & Saxe (2011, Cognition)” author: “Belynda Herrera (bpherrera@ucsd.edu)” date: “10-30-2024” output: html_document — ```{r}
<!-- Replication reports should all use this template to standardize reporting across projects. These reports will be public supplementary materials that accompany the summary report(s) of the aggregate results. -->
## Introduction
Justification for Experiment Choice: I chose to replicate Young and Saxe's study, "When Ignorance Is No Excuse: Different Roles for Intent Across Moral Domains," as it closely aligns with my research interests in criminology and the psychological factors underpinning moral judgment. The study's investigation into the varied impacts of intent on moral assessments across domains—such as harm versus purity—relates directly to understanding societal responses to legal and moral transgressions. In particular, this work provides a framework for examining how intent influences perceptions of responsibility and moral wrongness, which is relevant to my research on the social and psychological dynamics of criminal behavior.
Young and Saxe's experiment involved participants evaluating moral scenarios where intent and outcome varied, providing a robust model for analyzing how judgments are shaped by the interaction of these factors. This experimental setup offers a unique lens to examine how individuals assess responsibility in morally ambiguous situations, where a perceived lack of intent might mitigate or aggravate judgments. Replicating this study will deepen insights into the cognitive processes involved in moral judgment, helping to address complex issues related to public perceptions of justice and accountability, especially in the context of accidental or ambiguous actions that often arise in real-world criminal cases.
## Repository Links
- **Repository:** [Your Repository Name](https://github.com/belynda0/Sloman_Rabb_2016)
- **Original Paper:** [Link to Original Paper](https://github.com/belynda0/Sloman_Rabb_2016/tree/main/original_paper)
## Methods
### Power Analysis
- The study involved 80 new participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Scenarios were presented in the third person, replacing "you" with a specific name (e.g., "Sam") to assess moral judgments in a different perspective. The experiment utilized a 2 (intentional vs. accidental) × 2 (harm vs. incest) between-subjects design, where each participant judged the moral wrongness of a single scenario on a 7-point scale .
### Planned Sample
- In Experiment 1B, data was collected from 80 new participants, using the same platform as in Experiment 1A, to replicate key effects with third-person moral scenarios . The demographics of the participants in Experiment 1A included 134 females, with ages ranging from 18 to 68 years, and a mean age of 37 years (standard deviation = 12 years) . The specific demographics for Experiment 1B were not detailed in the provided contexts. Participants were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk, a common platform for gathering data from diverse populations in psychological research .
- **Preselection Rules**:
- The study implemented three measures to screen out repeat participants:
1. Participants were asked not to participate if they had previously taken a similar survey.
2. A final question was included to confirm whether participants had completed a similar survey before and its topic.
3. Data from participants with identical worker IDs was eliminated to ensure uniqueness in responses .
### Materials
Participants were presented with various moral scenarios that included both intentional and accidental actions related to harm and incest. The scenarios were designed to elicit moral judgments based on the participants' perceptions of intent and the nature of the actions. Participants made judgments using a 7-point scale for two main questions:
- "How morally wrong was the action?" rated from "not at all morally wrong" (1) to "very morally wrong" (7).
- "How disgusting was the action?" rated from "not at all disgusting" (1) to "very disgusting" (7) .
### Procedure
Can quote directly from original article - just put the text in quotations and note that this was followed precisely. Or, quote directly and just point out exceptions to what was described in the original article.
### Analysis Plan
Can also quote directly, though it is less often spelled out effectively for an analysis strategy section. The key is to report an analysis strategy that is as close to the original - data cleaning rules, data exclusion rules, covariates, etc. - as possible.
**Clarify key analysis of interest here** You can also pre-specify additional analyses you plan to do.
### Differences from Original Study
We will have a diverse pool of participants, and I believe the timing of the testing is significant, given the strong political views that have emerged in recent years.
### Methods Addendum (Post Data Collection)
You can comment this section out prior to final report with data collection.
#### Actual Sample
Sample size, demographics, data exclusions based on rules spelled out in analysis plan
#### Differences from pre-data collection methods plan
Any differences from what was described as the original plan, or “none”.
## Results
### Data preparation
Data preparation following the analysis plan.
```{r include=F}
### Data Preparation
#### Load Relevant Libraries and Functions
#### Import data
#### Data exclusion / filtering
#### Prepare data for analysis - create columns etc.The analyses as specified in the analysis plan.
Side-by-side graph with original graph is ideal here
Any follow-up analyses desired (not required).
Open the discussion section with a paragraph summarizing the primary result from the confirmatory analysis and the assessment of whether it replicated, partially replicated, or failed to replicate the original result.
Add open-ended commentary (if any) reflecting (a) insights from follow-up exploratory analysis, (b) assessment of the meaning of the replication (or not) - e.g., for a failure to replicate, are the differences between original and present study ones that definitely, plausibly, or are unlikely to have been moderators of the result, and (c) discussion of any objections or challenges raised by the current and original authors about the replication attempt. None of these need to be long.