PONE-D-23-26287Observers’ Motivated Sensitivity to Outgroup Actors’ IntentPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Staples,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has some merit but falls short of PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Crucially, your revision should incorporate the following: 1. Collect more data or reframe the paper in line with Reviewer 1's recommendation.2. Correct the error pointed out by Reviewer 1 in their point 2 (having to do with the mismatch between the presented scenario and the appendix description).3. Take heed of Reviewer 1's point 3 about sampling.4. Explain and correct the error mentioned by Reviewer 1's point 4 (truncation of the horizontal axis).5. Reviewer 2 has raised serious concerns with your handling of race and racial stereotypes. Your response to their critique should be very thorough and detailed.6. Address Reviewer 2's point about obsolete data.7. Both reviewers raise concerns about the ecological validity of your conclusions. That should be remedied (i.e., explained as a limitation) and you should provide a thorough explanation (to the reviewers) of why your data/conclusions are limited in this way yet still important.8. Thoroughly address Reviewer 2's point about ethical concerns (in their point 7). These are just the main issues you need to thoroughly address when submitting your revision. There are other important problems that should also be changed (read both reviewers' comments in detail). Please, do not submit your revised paper without making very substantial changes to it and without providing thorough responses to all the issues raised by the reviewers (not limited to the 8 underscored above). When preparing your revision, keep in mind that one reviewer recommended rejecting your paper (the other one indicated major revision), which means that the reworked paper will take a lot of effort and might very well not be accepted.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 03 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tibor Rutar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper examines how attributions of intentionality depend on distal/proximal intent and on group membership. I find the overall topic interesting and worthy of investigation.

The paper is well written, clear and to the point. However, I have some major concerns, mainly about the attribution of the results to actors’ relative group affiliation (ingroup or outgroup), rather than to their absolute group affiliation (white/black, liberal/conservative).

In sum, I suggest to collect data that will allow to assess in/out group effects, or to reframe the paper to deal with specific groups (rather than with outgroup members in general).

Major comments:

1. In the main text, the scenario in Study 1 is about Alex trying to kill Linda by drowning. In the appendix the scenario is about JG trying to kill his uncle by running him over with his car.

2. The actors in Study 1 are either Black or White men. The Mturk sample hardly includes Black participants. Would the results differ for Black participants assessing the intentionality of Black/White actors? If not, it would suggest that the results are not about the actor belonging to an outgroup, but about the actor being black. This is a crucial point, because the paper is about “outgroup actors”.

3. The ABPC scale goes from 1 to 7. In Figure 5, which presents the distribution of ABPC scores, the horizontal axis terminates at 5, giving the *false* impression that the “conservative” tertile is somewhat above the center of the scale (i.e., is somewhat conservative). But in reality, there are hardly any participants with an ABPC higher than 4, suggesting that the “conservative” tertile is actually more liberal than conservative.

This leads to a similar situation as in Study 1. In the absence of conservative participants, results cannot be attributed to the relative group affiliation of the actors (i.e., whether they belong to the ingroup or the outgroup), but may be due to actors’ absolute group affiliation (i.e., whether they are liberal or conservative).

Minor comments:

1. Add page and line numbers

2. “In other words, motivated cognition is often most evident in instances when ambiguity provides plausible deniability, or the illusion of objectivity (e.g., 23)” – not clear, sentence seems out of place.

3. Add error bars to figures

4. The figures would be easier to understand if arranged in a 2x2 table, with row labeled “High Distal Intent”/”Low Distal Intent”, and columns labeled “High Proximate Intent”/”Low Proximate Intent”

5. “Second, political intergroup bias may be stronger than racial intergroup bias” – this seems too general. It is based on the current evidence about *moral* reasoning and attribution. Since political groups are plausible construed as based on moral differences, it may be that other forms of bias—not/less related to moral issues—will not display a similar pattern.

6. Homicide is a very specific and extreme moral violation, which is likely not relevant to most people’s daily lives. I find it hard to draw general conclusions from this scenario.

7. The scenario starts with “JG told his friends that he wanted to kill his rich uncle…”. Why not “JG wanted to kill his rich uncle…”? What is the added value of JG telling his friends about his plan?

Reviewer #2: The manuscript "Observers’ Motivated Sensitivity to Outgroup Actors’ Intent" delves into the intricate dynamics of intentionality and moral judgment, examining how the attribution of intention varies based on the actor's group affiliation, either racial or political. This review integrates the provided points, scrutinising the paper’s conceptual depth, handling of sensitive topics such as race and political affiliation, and its theoretical contributions.

1) Conceptual Superficiality and Gradation of Intentionality

The manuscript's exploration of intentionality, particularly the proximal and distal intent framework (PIDI), attempts to offer a nuanced understanding of how intentions are perceived and judged. However, this exploration falls short of a truly gradational analysis, failing to convincingly argue for the distinctiveness and utility of the PIDI framework beyond existing theories in moral philosophy. The delineation between proximal and distal intent, while intended to enrich the understanding of intentionality, is not clearly or convincingly distinguished from pre-existing theories, which already address the complexity of intentions and their moral evaluations. Such judgements of intent also form the basis of most legal systems and sentencing, yet no reference is made to the vast body of research in criminology or criminal psychology. While this bidimensional approach is a commendable attempt to refine our understanding of how intention is perceived, the manipulations of proximal intent often come across as convoluted, and while the model promises a greater granularity and gradation in exploring the perceptions of intent, it only offers four categorical options, hence missing out on the promise of a more nuanced, dimensional model or exploring the possible variations of intentionality within the set categories. There is also no mention of the possible plurality of "distal" intents, which may converge or conflict in a situation ("proximal" intents seem entirely anchored in action and thus sequential). Finally, the claim that "proximal" and "distal" intents are completely independent remains questionable.

2) Insensitive Handling of Race and Stereotypes

The study's approach to racial dynamics, particularly through the framing of racial group membership in Study 1, raises concerns. Utilising race as a variable in scenarios of moral transgression without a nuanced or critical understanding of racial dynamics can inadvertently reinforce stereotypes. By relying on racial stereotypes and dated instruments (such as the use of the Attitudes Toward Blacks Scale (ATBS), which was initially developed in the 1970s as “Attitude Toward Negroes Scale”) and the assumptions that South Asian participants will identify with "the White ingroup" and judge Black people as "outgroup members", the study inadvertently reinforces simplistic and monolithic views of racial groups, failing to acknowledge the complex, intersectional identities and experiences of individuals within these groups. This oversight is additionally evident in the failure to include Black people as participants in Study 1, hence always positioning White (or non-Black, which is often conflated with White, and sometimes used to include Asian participants) participants as the judges of the behaviour of Black (or White) actors. Furthermore, this reinforces the default White gaze, and does not explore the possible biases in moral judgements of White and Black actors from the perspective of Black participants. It is also interesting that in a scenario designed to test the differential perceptions of intent on the basis of racial identity, the racial identity of the character Linda is never disclosed. That of course does not mean that participants imagined her as raceless, and what identity they attributed to her might have affected the severity of their judgements in various ways.

Finally, the data is 10 years old, and the last decade has been pivotal for the changing landscape of racial relations in North America (the last term of Obama's presidency, Trump's presidency, Charlottesville Rally, Ferguson, the Black Lives Matter movement, etc.). The paper never takes the effort to contextualise racial attitudes in the broader sociocultural and historical context, treating them as purely individual variables. They also appear to take a rather simplistic or reductionist perspective on racism, not taking into account the intersectionality and systemic factors. For example, on page 14, the authors assert that "A voluminous psychological literature has demonstrated that people display a range of motivated and non-motivated biases when processing information about racial outgroups, especially young, Black men (e.g., 24-26)" – it is unclear whether there is the greatest body of research on the biases towards young, Black men, or whether the research shows the greatest extent of biases targeting young, Black men; there is no information about whether this relates to a criminal setting (as in the study) or other settings (research suggests greater biases against Black women in workplace and healthcare settings, in judgements of attractiveness, in social and economic marginalisation, etc.; not to mention other intersecting axes of marginalisation, such as disability, class, education,...). This is just an example of the way that the authors use quick and convenient statements to justify their methodological choices (showing a picture of a young Black/White actor to explore the differences in perceptions of intent) without acknowledging context, intersectionality, or cultural and narrative templates circulating around racial criminal stereotypes (especially in North America). And while contemporary (liberal) racism tends to operate along quite subtle lines, the authors regurgitate 18th century level discourse about the mental capacities of Black people (e.g., “Study 1 data suggest that non-Black participants assume that Black actors possess the capacity to hold a broader aim (distal intent) in mind.” (p. 20)). While the authors pose the hypothesis on the basis that "Black individuals are more strongly governed by immediate, impulsive concerns, rather than abstract, rational aims (27-29)" (p. 14), attributing such deeply racist beliefs to their hypothetical participants, the repetition of such claims in scientific literature can serve to validate and reinforce these highly problematic views.

3) Theoretical Contributions and Distinctions from Existing Theories

The paper struggles to articulate the unique contributions of the PIDI framework and its distinction from existing moral psychological and philosophical theories. The notion that global or overarching motives (distal intent) are considered secondary to specific actions (proximal intent) in moral judgments is not adequately justified or explored, leading to confusion about the framework's theoretical underpinnings and its practical implications for understanding moral responsibility. Many assumptions are made about the psychological processes underpinning moral judgements, or the phenomenology of moral reasoning, yet no substantial evidence or rationale is provided. In the manuscript, there is the constantly recurring fallacy of inferring processes from outcomes without sufficient empirical or theoretical grounding.

4) Sensitivity to Context and Narrative Construction

The construction of scenarios for judging moral transgressions lacks justification and sensitivity to broader social and cultural contexts. By relying on questionable narrative templates and stereotypes (such as men resorting to extreme physical violence against women, women scheming against husbands and committing premeditated murder), the study overlooks the rich tapestry of moral reasoning that individuals employ, which is shaped by diverse social, cultural, and personal experiences. The studies further fail to critically examine or justify the chosen scenarios for moral judgements, which seem more rooted in narratives from TV crime series and novels than in the complex realities of moral decision-making. Additionally, while the racial or political identities are experimentally manipulated, the importance of gender and the accompanying biases and stereotypes is glaringly omitted.

5) Biases and Assumptions

The study's hypotheses and interpretations are heavily influenced by selective previous research and assumptions that may not allow for alternative interpretations of the data. Especially the framing of hypotheses in Study 1 is very problematic; they rely on cherry-picked previous research, and act as templates for interpretation, whereas numerous other hypotheses could be made, and the data could be explained with other, competing theories. Moreover, because the proximal–distal distinction in intentionality is in many cases questionable, and because the quantitative data does not illuminate the underlying psychological mechanisms, the interpretation and discussion often seem dubious. The biases and assumptions are also evident in the framing of moral judgments from the perspective of predominantly white or non-black participants, without adequately considering the perspectives of other racial groups or exploring the potential for motivated racial moral reasoning beyond simplistic binaries.

6) Political Orientation Conceptualisation:

The study’s conceptualisation of political orientation as a binary — distinguishing only between liberals and conservatives — oversimplifies the complexity of political identities. This binary is notably North American-centric and fails to account for the increasing diversity within the political spectrum, even within North America itself. Such an approach neglects rich literature from political psychology and political sciences that could provide nuanced insights into biases and stereotypes about political outgroup members. The lack of acknowledgment of this literature leaves the study with a significant conceptual gap, undermining the applicability of its findings to broader discussions on political ideology and moral judgment.

7) Methodological Concerns, Ecological Validity, and Future Directions

The lack of information on the briefing and debriefing procedures, especially given the studies' sensitive nature, raises ethical concerns. There is also a lack of commentary on how the application of scales assessing the participants' racial attitudes and political orientation might have acted as priming and biased the subsequent results. The claim that the study provides “a standardized, theoretically – and empirically – grounded template for future researchers who wish to measure intergroup judgments involving ambiguously-intentional acts” (p. 32) appears overstated given the limitations of the study's ecological validity and sensitivity to context. The assertion of offering a standardised template for future research is premature, especially considering the unexamined assumptions in the process of "standardisation" and the lack of in-depth study and understanding of the processes of moral reasoning that the PIDI framework purports to illuminate. There is also a lack of discussion on potential applications of the findings, such as understanding biases and judgments in criminal justice contexts, where the perceptions and biases of jury members can have severe effects on people's lives.

Finally, the paper's theoretical and methodological foundations would benefit from greater diversity among the authors and participants, allowing for a broader and more nuanced exploration of the topics at hand.

In conclusion, while the manuscript attempts to contribute to the literature on intentionality and moral judgment, it is hindered by conceptual superficiality, insensitive handling of racial and other group identities, and a lack of clarity in its theoretical contributions. Future research should strive for greater conceptual depth, sensitivity to the complexities of race and identity, and a clearer articulation of how frameworks such as PIDI can enhance our understanding of moral judgments and intentions.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Observers’ Motivated Sensitivity to Stigmatized Actors’ Intent

PONE-D-23-26287R1

Dear Mr. Staples (M.A.),

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tibor Rutar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I'd like to apologize for the long delays you've had to endure during the review process. I received your manuscript in late November. I then immediately started inviting reviewers in the field of social psychology of inter-/intra-group dynamics and intentionality. Between November and January, roughly 40 reviewers were invited. Only 2 accepted my invitation, the others either declined or were non-responsive. Things then got more complicated due to two reasons. First, one of the two reviewers became, despite constant reminders, evasive and in the end very late with their review. This ended up severely delaying the whole process. Second, during the second stage of reviews in May, the other reviewer initially accepted my invitation to review your revised version of the manuscript, but failed to turn in their review. I tried reinviting them twice, but the reviewer became non-responsive. To solve the problem, I invited a new, third reviewer, who carefully read your initial submission, both reviewers' comments, your response to the comments, and your revised manuscript. 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: I believe the authors have addressed all previous suggestions adequately. As noted in the review, the suggestions that were not directly incorporated in the revised paper are extensively commented on by the authors who satisfactorily justify their decision not to address the concerns raised by previous reviwers. The paper meets scientific standards as applied in other experimental studies in psychology and represents a valuable contribution to the journal.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: Yes: Minea Rutar

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Staples_Plaks_Review.docx