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.

Individual differences and counterfactual thinking, Journal of Cognitive Psychology, DOI:

10.1080/20445911.2024.2398787