Two experiments were conducted to investigate the relative influence of agents’ negligence and their actions’ unintended outcomes on moral judgements. In Study 1, 343 participants were asked in an online questionnaire about a driver whose level of negligence, and the severity of the outcome, were varied systematically. Each judged how much punishment and blame the driver deserved, and rated her negligence, causal responsibility, and intentionality. In Study 2, 341 participants completed the same questionnaire, and also judged the driver’s wrongness and the outcome’s severity. In both studies, judgements were strongly influenced by negligence; blame was also affected by causal responsibility, and wrongness by intention, but the relatively slight outcome effect on blame and wrongness was largely mediated by negligence. In contrast, both negligence and outcome had substantial effects on punishment judgements; most participants assigned high levels of punishment when, and only when, the outcome was negative and the agent was negligent. These findings shed light on the intriguing phenomenon of moral luck, and indicate that it applies more to punishment judgements than to blame and wrongness. They also indicate that when no negligence information is provided in the description of accidents (as in many previous studies), participants often attribute negligence to agents and judge them accordingly. It seems that the effect of outcome on moral judgements has often been overestimated by researchers, and that of negligence underestimated.

中文翻译：

---

他们应该更清楚：疏忽和结果在意外行为的道德判断中的作用

进行了两个实验来调查代理人的疏忽及其行为的意外结果对道德判断的相对影响。在研究 1 中，343 名参与者被问及一个司机的疏忽程度和结果的严重程度系统地变化的在线问卷调查。每个人都判断了司机应该受到多少惩罚和责备，并对她的疏忽、因果关系和故意作出评价。在研究 2 中，341 名参与者完成了相同的问卷调查，并判断了驾驶员的错误和结果的严重性。在这两项研究中，判断都受到过失的强烈影响。责备也受因果责任的影响，错误受意图的影响，但对责备和错误的结果影响相对较小，很大程度上是由疏忽调节的。相比之下，疏忽和结果都对惩罚判决产生了重大影响；大多数参与者在且仅当结果为负且代理人疏忽时才会给予高水平的惩罚。这些发现揭示了道德运气的有趣现象，并表明它更多地适用于惩罚判断，而不是责备和错误。他们还指出，当事故描述中没有提供过失信息时（如许多以前的研究），参与者通常将过失归咎于代理人并据此判断。似乎结果对道德判断的影响经常被研究人员高估，而疏忽的影响被低估了。结果是否定的，代理人疏忽大意。这些发现揭示了道德运气的有趣现象，并表明它更多地适用于惩罚判断，而不是责备和错误。他们还指出，当事故描述中没有提供过失信息时（如许多以前的研究），参与者通常将过失归咎于代理人并据此判断。似乎结果对道德判断的影响经常被研究人员高估，而疏忽的影响被低估了。结果是否定的，代理人疏忽大意。这些发现揭示了道德运气的有趣现象，并表明它更多地适用于惩罚判断，而不是责备和错误。他们还指出，当事故描述中没有提供过失信息时（如许多以前的研究），参与者通常将过失归咎于代理人并据此判断。似乎结果对道德判断的影响经常被研究人员高估，而疏忽的影响被低估了。他们还指出，当事故描述中没有提供过失信息时（如许多以前的研究），参与者通常将过失归咎于代理人并据此判断。似乎结果对道德判断的影响经常被研究人员高估，而疏忽的影响被低估了。他们还指出，当事故描述中没有提供过失信息时（如许多以前的研究），参与者通常将过失归咎于代理人并据此判断。似乎结果对道德判断的影响经常被研究人员高估，而疏忽的影响被低估了。