The effect of controllability and causality on counterfactual thinking

Frosch, Caren A.; Egan, Suzanne; Hancock, Emily N.

doi:10.1080/13546783.2014.976268

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, prefactual thoughts were more focused on controllable aspects of the situations (e.g., skills that could be improved). Ferrante et al (2013) speculated that prefactuals might be more functional than counterfactuals for goal pursuit, but we emphasize that this conclusion is perhaps true only in the relative sense because a range of evidence shows that counterfactual thoughts are more likely than not to center on controllable personal actions (Frosch, Egan, & Hancock, 2015; Gilbert, Tenney, Holland, & Spellman, 2015; Girotto, Legrenzi, & Rizzo, 1991; Markman, Gavanski, Sherman & McMullen, 1995; Roese & Olson, 1995).…”

Section: Determinants Of Prefactualsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Prefactual Thoughts: Mental Simulations about What Might Happen

Epstude

Scholl

Roese

2016

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thought about the future can take many forms, from goal planning to intentions and from fantasies to magical thinking. The term prefactual has guided some past research, yet its potential impact has been hampered by inconsistency in its definition. Here we define prefactual thought as a conditional (if-then) proposition about an action-outcome linkage that may (or may not) take place in the future, such as “If I take action X, it will lead to outcome Y.” A prefactual embraces a causal belief that an action (if taken) will result in the outcome with a high degree of certainty. A form of mental simulation, prefactuals often derive from counterfactuals (which focus on the past) and feed into intentions (which center on the future). This article provides an overview of extant findings, draws connections to goal pursuit and affect regulation, and clarifies the value of the prefactual construct for conceptualizations of prospection.

show abstract

Section: Determinants Of Prefactualsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Prefactual Thoughts: Mental Simulations about What Might Happen

Epstude

Scholl

Roese

2016

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Factors influencing whether counterfactuals induce blame include controllability (i.e., level of control an individual had over an event; Frosch et al, 2015), mutability (i.e., how likely the features of the event are liable to change; Kahneman & Miller, 1986), and preventability (i.e., how preventable the event was; Mandel & Lehman, 1996). These factors work together to shape blame attributions.…”

Section: Counterfactuals and Blame Attributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterfactuals in mainstream media: A pathway for blame attribution and policy endorsement in police lethal force incidents

Smith,

Nuñez

2024

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research demonstrates that exposure to police lethal force through the media impacts individuals' support for police reform, but the mechanism driving this support is underexplored. The current study examines how news media counterfactuals (i.e., creating alternative outcomes for events that have already occurred) influence individuals' processing of police lethal force incidents, and how these perceptions, in turn, impact support for police reform. In a 2 (victim race: Black vs. White) × 3 (counterfactual target: victim, officer, or no counterfactual control) factorial design, 925 participants read a news article summarizing a lethal force incident, assigned blame for both the officer and victim, and reported their endorsement for various police reforms. Results indicated counterfactual target impacted blame attributions, and these blame attributions predicted endorsement of police reform while controlling for Attitudes Towards Police Legitimacy (APLS). These findings illustrate how media counterfactuals can influence blame, and importantly, influence perceptions of various police reforms.

show abstract

“…Expanding from Wiener et al (1994), jurors should be more likely to think counterfactually about how the defendant could have acted differently if they perceive the defendant's actions, such as not providing a safety line, as more foreseeable, avoidable, or controllable (see Catellani et al, 2004; Markman & Weary, 1996; Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co ., 1928). In turn, this should result in a greater likelihood that the juror finds the defendant negligent, though the relationship between counterfactual thinking and controllability has been recently debated (see Frosch, Egan, & Hancock, 2015; Roese & Epstude, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterfactual Thinking, Causation, and Covariation in Mock Juror Assessments of Negligence: Twenty‐Five Years Later

Cantone

2018

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past three decades, researchers have examined counterfactual thinking and causation in decision making. However, little work has applied these findings to trial settings. The present research examined two conflicting theories regarding counterfactual thinking and causation to elaborate on earlier work examining counterfactual thinking in negligence law cases. The research also expanded the earlier work by examining covariation theory, additional psychological measures, and the rank order and reaction time associated with counterfactuals. Participants read a summary of a negligence case that manipulated covariation information to suggest that the defendant or plaintiff caused an accident. Participants then completed counterfactual, preventability, or causal statements about the case before responding to legal and psychological measures. Overall, the research found support for norm theory and covariation, but mixed evidence regarding the role of counterfactual thinking and causation. Counterfactual thinking more strongly affected the duty and breach components of a negligence case, while causal thinking more strongly affected causation and legal decisions. Legal implications were discussed.

show abstract

The effect of controllability and causality on counterfactual thinking

Cited by 6 publications

References 44 publications

Prefactual Thoughts: Mental Simulations about What Might Happen

Prefactual Thoughts: Mental Simulations about What Might Happen

Counterfactuals in mainstream media: A pathway for blame attribution and policy endorsement in police lethal force incidents

Counterfactual Thinking, Causation, and Covariation in Mock Juror Assessments of Negligence: Twenty‐Five Years Later

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About