LAUSR

Abstract This study examined age-related differences in the use of negligence information in moral judgment. A group of younger adults (18–36 years) and a group of older adults (75–98 years) were presented with a series of scenarios illustrating cases where an agent unintentionally causes harm. The scenarios also specified whether or not the agent acted with negligence. Participants were asked to rate how morally wrong was the agent’s action. We found that older participants condemned the agents of accidental harms regardless of whether they acted with negligence, whereas younger participants condemned only the agents that acted with negligence. Subsequently, participants were presented with an accidental harm scenario in which negligence information was omitted, and were asked to morally evaluate the agent’s action and to rate the extent to which the agent could be accused of negligence. Compared to younger adults, older adults condemned the agent’s action more severely and rated the agent as more negligent. These results suggest that aging is associated with an increased tendency to assume that accidental harmdoers are negligent. This bias may help explain the intent-to-outcome shift occurring in old adults’ moral judgment.