{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029217719132893498, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007540056550424128, 'mean_word_length': 5.6375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Heider's foreseeability level of responsibility attribution: does it come after intentionality?

A conceptual analysis of Heider's level 3 foreseeability rule for the attribution of responsibility suggests that it is more difficult than levels 2 (commission) and 4 (intentionality) because it requires forms of reasoning ascribed to Piaget's formal operational thought. Thus, the rule should be acquired in early adolescence, or later. Previous studies showing foreseeability attributions in younger children have been confounded by the fact that their stimulus materials required an inference of intentionality. The present study, of 5-15-year-olds, avoided this confound by using an "omniscient narrator" technique to control the children's inferences of intent. The results suggest that children first employ Heider's commission rule, then his intentionality rule, and finally adopt the foreseeability rule at about 11 years. The study did not assess whether or not foreseeability attribution is a "stage" in the sense of Piaget's formal operational thought.