14 found
Sort by:
  1. David R. Mandel (2014). Suicide Terrorism, Moral Relativism, and the Situationist Narrative. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (4):373.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Mandeep K. Dhami & David R. Mandel (2012). Forecasted Risk Taking in Youth: Evidence for a Bounded-Rationality Perspective. Synthese 189 (S1):161-171.
    This research examined whether youth's forecasted risk taking is best predicted by a compensatory (namely, subjective expected utility) or non-compensatory (e.g., single-factor) model. Ninety youth assessed the importance of perceived benefits, importance of perceived drawbacks, subjective probability of benefits, and subjective probability of drawbacks for 16 risky behaviors clustered evenly into recreational and health/safety domains. In both domains, there was strong support for a noncompensatory model in which only the perceived importance of the benefits of engaging in a risky behavior (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. David R. Mandel (2011). Of Causal and Counterfactual Explanation. In Christoph Hoerl, Teresa McCormack & Sarah R. Beck (eds.), Understanding Counterfactuals, Understanding Causation. Oxford University Press. 147.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. David R. Mandel (2010). Predicting Blame Assignment in a Case of Negligent Harm. Mind and Society 9 (1):5-17.
    Theories of blame posit that observers consider causality, controllability, and foreseeability when assigning blame to actors. The present study examined which of these factors, either on their own or in interaction, predicted blame assigned to actors in a case of harm caused by negligence. The findings revealed that only causal impact ratings predicted blame. The findings also revealed a novel form of asymmetric discounting: the causal impact of a negligent actor was used to discount blame assigned to an innocent actor, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. David R. Mandel (2008). Violations of Coherence in Subjective Probability: A Representational and Assessment Processes Account. Cognition 106 (1):130-156.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. David R. Mandel & Oshin Vartanian (2008). Taboo or Tragic: Effect of Tradeoff Type on Moral Choice, Conflict, and Confidence. [REVIEW] Mind and Society 7 (2):215-226.
    Historically, cognitivists considered moral choices to be determined by analytic processes. Recent theories, however, have emphasized the role of intuitive processes in determining moral choices. We propose that the engagement of analytic and intuitive processes is contingent on the type of tradeoff being considered. Specifically, when a tradeoff necessarily violates a moral principle no matter what choice is made, as in tragic tradeoffs, its resolution should result in greater moral conflict and less confidence in choice than when the tradeoff offers (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. David R. Mandel (2007). Differential Focus in Causal and Counterfactual Thinking: Different Possibilities or Different Functions? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (5-6):460-461.
    In The Rational Imagination, Byrne proposes a mental models account of why causal and counterfactual thinking often focus on different antecedents. This review critically examines the two central propositions of her account, finding both only weakly defensible. Byrne's account is contrasted with judgment dissociation theory, which offers a functional explanation for differences in the focus of causal and counterfactual thinking.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. David R. Mandel (2007). Nested Sets Theory, Full Stop: Explaining Performance on Bayesian Inference Tasks Without Dual-Systems Assumptions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (3):275-276.
    Consistent with Barbey & Sloman (B&S), it is proposed that performance on Bayesian inference tasks is well explained by nested sets theory (NST). However, contrary to those authors' view, it is proposed that NST does better by dispelling with dual-systems assumptions. This article examines why, and sketches out a series of NST's core principles, which were not previously defined.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. David R. Mandel (2005). Counterfactual and Causal Explanation: From Early Theoretical Views to New Frontiers. In David R. Mandel, Denis J. Hilton & Patrizia Catellani (eds.), The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Routledge.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. David R. Mandel, Denis J. Hilton & Patrizia Catellani (eds.) (2005). The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Routledge.
    It is human nature to wonder how things might have turned out differently--either for the better or for the worse. For the past two decades psychologists have been intrigued by this phenomenon, which they call counterfactual thinking. Specifically, researchers have sought to answer the "big" questions: Why do people have such a strong propensity to generate counterfactuals, and what functions does counterfactual thinking serve? What are the determinants of counterfactual thinking, and what are its adaptive and psychological consequences? This important (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. David R. Mandel (2003). Effect of Counterfactual and Factual Thinking on Causal Judgements. Thinking and Reasoning 9 (3):245 – 265.
    The significance of counterfactual thinking in the causal judgement process has been emphasized for nearly two decades, yet no previous research has directly compared the relative effect of thinking counterfactually versus factually on causal judgement. Three experiments examined this comparison by manipulating the task frame used to focus participants' thinking about a target event. Prior to making judgements about causality, preventability, blame, and control, participants were directed to think about a target actor either in counterfactual terms (what the actor could (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. David R. Mandel (2003). Judgment Dissociation Theory: An Analysis of Differences in Causal, Counterfactual and Covariational Reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132 (3):419.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. David R. Mandel (2000). On the Meaning and Function of Normative Analysis: Conceptual Blur in the Rationality Debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):686-687.
    The rationality debate centers on the meaning of deviations of decision makers' responses from the predictions/prescriptions of normative models. But for the debate to have significance, the meaning and functions of normative analysis must be clear. Presently, they are not, and the debate's persistence owes much to conceptual blur. An attempt is made here to clarify the concept of normative analysis.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. David R. Mandel (1998). The Obedience Alibi. Analyse and Kritik 20 (S 74):94.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation