Contrastive and counterfactual reasoning in causal judgment.

Abstract

The present research addressed differences in the use of covariation information implied by counterfactual reasoning, which focuses on the question «Would the event Y have occurred if the candidate X had not?» and contrastive reasoning, which involves comparing the target episode to contrasting background instances and noting distinctive features. Two experiments test hypotheses regarding the use of counterfactual and contrastive thinking under different conditions. Findings suggest that when no candidate has been identified, people are more likely to engage in contrastive thinking, but they may engage in counterfactual thinking when they are asked to evaluate a specific candidate