David R. Mandel

Counterfactual thinking and ascriptions of cause and preventability.

Research suggests that counterfactuals (i.e., thoughts of how things might have been different) play an important role in determining the perceived cause of a target outcome. Results from 3 scenario studies indicate that counterfactual content overlapped primarily with thoughts of how an outcome might have been prevented (preventability ascriptions) rather than with thoughts of how it might have been caused (causal ascriptions). Counterfactuals and preventability ascriptions focused mainly on controllable antecedents, whereas causal ascriptions focused mainly on antecedents that covaried with the target outcome over a focal set of instances. Contrary to current theorizing, causal ascriptions were unrelated to counterfactual content (Study 3). Results indicate that the primary criterion used to recruit causal ascriptions (covariation) differs from that used to recruit counterfactuals (controllability).

Counterfactuals, emotions, and context

Participants recalled either a negative academic or interpersonal experience, and the relations among counterfactual thinking, negative emotions, and attributions of blame and control were examined. Situational context effects on attribution, counterfactual thinking, and emotion were observed, indicating a greater tendency toward self-focused cognition and emotion in the academic context than in the interpersonal context. Consistent with recent theorising, upward counterfactual thinking was associated with negative emotions of guilt, shame, regret, disappointment, and sadness. However, there was no indication that downward counterfactual thinking regulated emotion as previous literature suggests. Implications for functional and process theories of counterfactual thinking are discussed.

The inverse fallacy: An account of deviations from Bayes’s theorem and the additivity principle

In judging posterior probabilities, people often answer with the inverse conditional probability—a tendency named theinverse fallacy. Participants (N=45) were given a series of probability problems that entailed estimating bothp(H\vbD) andp(≈,H\vbD). The findings revealed that deviations of participants’ estimates from Bayesian calculations and from the additivity principle could be predicted by the corresponding deviations of the inverse probabilities from these relevant normative benchmarks. Methodological and theoretical implications of the distinction between inverse fallacy and base-rate neglect and the generalization of the study of additivity to conditional probabilities are discussed.

Judgment dissociation theory: an analysis of differences in causal, counterfactual, and covariational reasoning.

Research suggests that causal judgment is influenced primarily by counterfactual or covariational reasoning. In contrast, the author of this article develops judgment dissociation theory (JDT), which predicts that these types of reasoning differ in function and can lead to divergent judgments. The actuality principle proposes that causal selections focus on antecedents that are sufficient to generate the actual outcome. The substitution principle proposes that ad hoc categorization plays a key role in counterfactual and covariational reasoning such that counterfactual selections focus on antecedents that would have been sufficient to prevent the outcome or something like it and covariational selections focus on antecedents that yield the largest increase in the probability of the outcome or something like it. The findings of 4 experiments support JDT but not the competing counterfactual and covariational accounts.

Illness experience, depression, and anxiety in chronic fatigue syndrome

OBJECTIVE Given the high rate of psychiatric comorbidity with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), we considered two possible correlates of anxiety and depression: lack of illness legitimization and beliefs about limiting physical activity. METHOD A total of 105 people diagnosed with CFS reported on their experiences with medical professionals and their beliefs about recovery and completed the depression and anxiety subscales of the Brief Symptom Inventory. RESULTS Those who said that their physician did not legitimize their illness (36%) had higher depression and anxiety scores (Ps<.05) than their counterparts. Those who believed that limiting their physical exertion was the path to recovery (55%) had lower depression and anxiety scores (Ps<.01) than their counterparts. CONCLUSION Lack of illness legitimization ranked high as a source of dissatisfaction for CFS patients, and it may aggravate psychiatric morbidity. Many CFS patients believed that staying within what they felt to be their physical limits would improve their condition. This belief, and possibly an accompanying sense of control over their symptoms, may alleviate psychiatric morbidity.

Beyond mere ownership: transaction demand as a moderator of the endowment effect

Abstract Transaction demand refers to the motivation to complete a transaction. As transaction demand increases, owners should sell at lower prices and buyers should buy at higher ones. It was predicted that the endowment effect—the tendency for minimum selling price to exceed maximum buying price for a particular commodity—should be minimized when buyers and sellers have high transaction demand. The results of two experiments supported this hypothesis: In Experiment 1, the endowment effect was observed when participants imagined another individual wanting to buy from or sell to them, but not when they imagined wanting to buy from or sell to another individual. In Experiment 2, a reversal of the endowment effect was observed when transaction demand was high for both prospective buyers and sellers. The findings highlight the importance of motivational factors in addition to other factors (e.g., loss aversion, reference dependence) in determining behavior.

Should this child be removed from home? Hypothesis generation and information seeking as predictors of case decisions.

Two vital aspects of the investigative process in child abuse and neglect (CAN) cases are (a) generating as many plausible hypotheses as possible and (b) seeking out as much uncontaminated information as possible. Alternatively, unwarranted assumptions about the nature of CAN cases can impair investigative decision making. We examined whether the numbers of (a) unwarranted assumptions, (b) hypotheses generated, and (c) requests for additional information concerning a hypothetical reported case of CAN predicted level of agreement with a premature decision to remove a child from home among a group of CAN professionals. As expected, lower levels of agreement with the intervention were associated with (a) less unwarranted assumptions, (b) a greater number of hypotheses generated, and (c) more requests for information concerning the case. Compared with a group of undergraduates, a significantly greater percentage of CAN professionals requested information, and a significantly smaller percentage of professionals made unwarranted assumptions. Interestingly, however, no significant difference in mean level of agreement with the intervention was observed between professionals and undergraduates. Directions for future research are discussed.