Counterfactual reasoning in causal judgments: Implications for marketing

Abstract

This article describes recent research on counterfactual reasoning in causal judgment and details implications for future research on consumer and managerial decisions. Two types of counterfactual reasoning may be employed in causal judgment, one of which involves outcome contrasts, and is used to generate possible causal explanations, and the other of which involves antecedent contrasts and is used to test candidate explanations. Prior research on outcome contrasts indicates that people compare instances in which the event occurred to instances in which the event did not occur and base their causal explanations on distinctive features between these two types of occurrences. Explanations may therefore vary as a function of the instances chosen for comparison. Prior research findings suggest that consumers and managers may choose different comparison instances depending on their perspective, culture, and perceived norms. Prior research on antecedent contrasts indicates that people test possible explanations for an event by considering instances in which the candidate factor was absent and asking whether the event would have occurred anyway. Findings suggest, however, that consideration of antecedent contrasts may depend on the type of category on which the explanation is based, with less emphasis on antecedent contrasts for explanations based on categories of objects found in nature (natural kind categories) compared to categories of objects made by humans (artifactual categories). This article proposes the hypothesis that people may perceive some brands and product categories as more like natural kinds than artifactual categories and so may be less likely to evaluate causal explanations involving these brands or products with counterfactual processes. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.