Verified by 
Cross-Cultural Psychology
Intent Matters, but Impact Matters More
Why intent matters in intercultural interactions, and why it does not.
Updated September 1, 2023 Reviewed by Ray Parker
Key points
- The impact of an action is not always equal to the intent behind it.
- It is important to be humble and to assume good intent when interacting with different cultures.
- When someone has been harmed by an action, it is important to listen to their experience.
“Intent is not equal to impact.”
Whenever I teach about racial discrimination and its emotional outcomes, I find myself repeating this well-known line to students. It’s a pithy way to drive home the point that, just because you (or me) did not mean to invalidate or insult the other person, it does not mean that psychological harm did not occur.
But another saying that I have been hearing from those around me is, “Assume positive intent.” This statement is often emphasized from the perspective of giving the benefit of the doubt to the other person.
In our increasingly polarized world, when it comes to responses to interpersonal stressors, such as racial discrimination, folks will likely “pick a side” between the truths captured within these two statements. The intent-does-not-equal-impact group will argue that “assuming best intent” is to stand on the side of those who have perpetuated harm, and consequently, negating the experiences of those who are emotionally injured.
But those on the side of “assume best intent” would counter by arguing that the motivation underlying the behavior matters, and to reject the motivation is an oversight of a significant component of human interactions.
I know that conventional wisdom says that in a post like this, I should not make arguments for “both sides,” but for this topic, can I break this rule and propose that we should keep both statements in mind?
“Intent does not equal impact” is an important counter to those who might employ a defensive posture when confronted about the hurtful nature of what they said or did; those who might explain away the psychological sting with something like, “But that’s not what I meant, you are being overly sensitive.”
Moreover, it’s a way to illustrate that one powerful way that we know racism is real is through its association with mental health outcomes (i.e., impact). In my research program, over and over again, the empirical relationship between the cumulative experience of racial discrimination and emotional well-being is quite clear. Put differently, we might say that racial discrimination is real because it predicts expected things like emotional distress (i.e., there is predictive validity).
But I must also admit that “assuming best intent” has its place in intercultural conversations. Perhaps another term that captures the same idea is humility. The idea of humility is important when it comes to racial relations; in my own experience, especially as a scholar studying these topics, I can let my arrogance (i.e., lack of humility) get the best of me when interacting with others.
In the spirit of vulnerability, here is a brief story that illustrates a time when I demonstrated a lack of humility and therefore did not assume the best intent.
Many years ago, I was walking back to my hotel room from a conference session in New Orleans, when a stranger approached me to ask, “Where are you from?” I rolled my internal eyes and thought, “Here we go again,” assuming that this man was perpetuating the falsehood that all people of Asian heritage in the U.S. must be foreigners. I took a deep breath, and with a fierce desire to “educate” the other person about the microaggressive statement, smugly replied, “South Bend, Indiana” to make a point that I was currently residing in a U.S. town. I waited for an awkward apology, or an embarrassed moment of silence, planning to walk away, knowing that I had made my point.
But the man did not skip a beat; instead, he said, “Oh, sorry, I meant to ask about your ethnicity. Is it Korean?” When I answered in the affirmative, the conversation turned into a meaningful, lengthy chat about our shared experiences and interests in Korean culture. Turns out that he had a fascinating story to tell about his time living in South Korea as a foreigner, and he was motivated to approach me in the middle of a busy street because he had suspected (correctly) that I was Korean.
I walked away from that interaction, ashamed about my initial pride, and how close I came to missing out on the rewarding conversation and genuine human connection with this person because of my insistence upon assuming a bad intent.
To be clear, I do not mean that all microaggressive statements should be received assuming the best intent. As I noted earlier, such an approach can be dangerous and has the potential to inflict further emotional pain on the part of the recipient of the microaggression. I stand by the truth underlying the statement, “Intent does not equal impact” when it comes to how racial microaggressions, intended or unintended, can lead to emotional distress.
Moreover, I would argue that “assume good intent” is especially applicable in the context of established, trusting relationships. Put differently, it might be foolish to assume good intent from someone that you do not know, or from someone who has violated your trust in the past.
But what I am saying is that sometimes, assuming good intent allows a posture of trust and humility; it can lead to a meaningful connection—even repairing of impacted relationships—between two or more folks.
Maybe a more accurate but not so pithy statement might be: Intent does not matter when it comes to how much psychological injury has occurred. But intent, when communicated humbly and effectively, can sometimes help foster healing and rebuild relationships.
