Just like a seasoned detective assessing the likelihood of a suspect being guilty, older adults tend to judge accidental harm more harshly than younger adults. This is because they believe that accidents are more likely to occur and therefore attribute more negligence to the harmdoers. In two studies involving 254 participants, researchers have confirmed this age-related difference in moral judgment. They have also made a novel discovery – older adults’ increased attribution of negligence is associated with their perception of a higher likelihood of the accident happening. Essentially, older adults not only condemn the actions of those involved more harshly but also infer that these individuals intentionally failed to exercise due care. These findings shed light on the cognitive processes involved in moral judgment during older adulthood and emphasize the importance of subjective probability judgments in determining negligence.

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.

Read Full Article (External Site)