Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Effect of counterfactual and factual thinking on causal judgments.

By Dr. David R. Mandel

Abstract

The significance of counterfactual thinking in the causal judgment process has been emphasized for nearly two decades, yet no previous research has directly compared the relative effect of thinking counterfactually versus factually on causal judgment. Three experiments examined this comparison by manipulating the task frame used to focus participants’ thinking about a target event. Prior to making judgments about causality, preventability, blame, and control, participants were directed to think about a target actor either in counterfactual terms (what the actor could have done to change the outcome) or in factual terms (what the actor had done that led to the outcome). In each experiment, the effect of counterfactual thinking did not differ reliably from the effect of factual thinking on causal judgment. Implications for research on causal judgment and mental representation are discussed

Topics: Cognitive Psychology
Year: 2003
OAI identifier: oai:cogprints.org:5123

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1965). Causal judgments and causal explanations.
  2. (1959). Causation in the law.
  3. (1984). Choices, values, and frames.
  4. (1998). Close-call counterfactuals and belief system defenses: I was not almost wrong but I was almost right. doi
  5. (1997). Cognitive processes in counterfactual thinking about what might have been. In
  6. (1989). Context effects in judgments of causation.
  7. (1993). Contrastive and counterfactual thinking in causal judgment.
  8. (1990). Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency. doi
  9. (1990). Conversational processes and causal explanation.
  10. (1991). Counterfactual reasoning as a framework for attribution theories.
  11. (2000). Counterfactual thinking about actions and failures to act.
  12. (1996). Counterfactual thinking and ascriptions of cause and preventability.
  13. (1996). Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics: Logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives. In
  14. (1995). Counterfactual thought, regret, and superstition: How to avoid kicking yourself. In
  15. (1999). Deductions from factual, possible, and counterfactual conditionals.
  16. (1983). Explaining differences and weighting causes.
  17. (2001). Gain-loss framing and choice: Separating outcome formulations from descriptor formulations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
  18. (1998). Integration of contingency information in judgments of cause, covariation, and probability.
  19. (1986). Judging probable cause.
  20. (2002). Judgment dissociation theory: An analysis of differences in causal, counterfactual, and covariational reasoning. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  21. (1986). Knowledge-based causal attribution: The abnormal conditions focus model.
  22. (1989). Mental simulation of causality. doi
  23. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives.
  24. (1990). Propensities and counterfactuals: The loser that almost won.
  25. (1996). Rape and accident counterfactuals: Who might have done otherwise and would it have changed the outcome?
  26. (1998). Relative use of necessity and sufficiency information in causal judgments about natural categories.
  27. (1975). Self-serving biases in attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?
  28. (2002). Semifactual “even if” thinking. Thinking and Reasoning,
  29. (1990). Temporal order and the perceived mutability of events: Implications for blame assignment.
  30. (1974). The cement of the universe: A study of causation.
  31. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. doi
  32. (1982). The self-serving attributional bias: Beyond self-presentation.
  33. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In
  34. (1995). The undoing of traumatic life events.
  35. (2000). What’s so different about a counterfactual? World Politics,
  36. (1999). When possibility informs reality: Counterfactual thinking as a cue to causality. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.