Young children give transgressors the benefit of the doubt in the absence of intention information

Young children consider transgressors’ intentions in their normative judgments. But how do children evaluate moral transgressions in the absence of information about a transgressor’s intent? Across three studies, 5-year-old German-speaking children ( N = 216, 108 girls, 108 boys) observed negative moral outcomes in which the transgressor was either smiling (happy condition), shocked (surprised condition) or was without expression, in that their face was left entirely blank (no-expression condition). Children then reasoned in pairs (Study 1 and 2) or independently (Study 3) about the intentional structure of each transgression. In Study 1, dyads concluded the transgressions were intentional in the happy condition, accidental in the surprised condition, and were at-chance in the no-expression condition. In Studies 2 and 3, methodological changes meant children concluded the transgressions were accidental in the no-expression condition and were at-chance in the happy condition. When intention information was thus unavailable, 5-year-olds preferred to ascribe positive intentions to transgressors devoid of all expression and give them the benefit of the doubt. • In the absence of evidence, 5-year-olds give transgressors the benefit of the doubt. • 5-year-olds justify their moral judgments and refer to available evidence. • 5-year-olds give more accidental reasons when talking with adults than with peers.