Stable Asymmetries, Fragile Wordings: Cross-Formulation Evidence on the Epistemic Side-Effect Effect

The epistemic side-effect effect (ESEE) is the asymmetry whereby agents are more readily attributed knowledge about harmful than helpful side effects of their actions. We examine whether this asymmetry depends on the formulation of the knowledge claim. Across three experiments conducted in Polish and English, using between- and within-subjects designs, we tested agentive, causal, and change-of-state formulations of the knowledge probe. Wording effects were limited and uneven: the harm–help asymmetry persisted across all formulations, and harm cases remained highly stable, whereas help cases showed greater variability and the only detectable formulation effects. Justifications for knowledge attributions predominantly invoked consequence awareness rather than belief or evidential support, while knowledge denials in help cases drew on a wider range of epistemic and motivational considerations. The findings suggest that ESEE is not driven by probe wording, and that help cases are the main site of residual variability in the effect.