The study explored the impact of reasoning capabilities and five personality dimensions, measured
by the 16PF-5 (extraversion, anxiety, self-control, tough-mindedness, independence), on
counterfactuals and responsibility attribution in judicial cases. The authors hypothesised that
individual differences in these personality traits predicted the direction, magnitude, and content
of counterfactuals and responsibility judgments. The main results showed that Anxiety
(positively) and Self-Control (negatively) predicted downward counterfactual judgments in a
medical malpractice case, whereas people with high reasoning capabilities generated upward
counterfactual in an assault case. Perfectionism positively predicted an upward direction
independently of the scenarios. Extraversion and reasoning capabilities predicted the attribution
of responsibility to the victim, whereas Anxiety and Tough-Mindedness predicted responsibility
to external causes in the medical malpractice case. For the assault case, Self-Control predicted
both the attribution of responsibility to the agent and to external causes. Results were
discussed considering implications of counterfactuals in the judicial field.
Elisa Gambetti, Micaela Maria Zucchelli & Raffaella Nori (11 Sep 2024):
Individual differences and counterfactual thinking, Journal of Cognitive Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/20445911.2024.2398787
