Does reflection reduce the epistemic side‐effect effect? A new challenge to error accounts

The epistemic side‐effect effect consists of an asymmetric pattern of knowledge attributions in harm and help cases, paralleling the Knobe effect for intentionality attributions. Error‐based accounts suggest the asymmetries arise from performance errors in harm cases. We challenge this claim with three new experimental studies designed to reduce errors. First, we presented harm and help cases simultaneously. Second, participants completed the cognitive reflection test . Third, we explained both effects to participants. Despite these measures, the effect persists. People who change their mind tend to do so in the help cases, which is problematic for error accounts.