{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021181716833890748, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002229654403567447, 'mean_word_length': 5.7518796992481205, '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}}
A Posteriori adjustment of a priori decision criteria.

Rational decision theories and philosophical theories of moral responsibility stipulate that ascriptions of blame for harmdoing should be based on a priori sources of culpability (e.g., intention, motive, foresight, negligence) rather than on a posteriori outcomes that occur subsequent to an actor's behavioral involvement. The five studies reported in this paper demonstrated, however, that a posteriori outcome information strongly affects both ascriptions of blame and decision quality. Furthermore, these studies supported a revisionist model of a posteriori influence whereby outcome information leads observers to revise their estimations of the actor's a priori culpability. Studies 4 and 5 elaborated this model by demonstrating that a posteriori revision of a priori decision criteria serves to justify people's blame attributions.