Semifactual ''even if'' thinking

Thinking and Reasoning 8 (1):41 – 67 (2002)
Authors
Ruth Mary Josephine Byrne
Trinity College, Dublin
Abstract
Semifactual thinking about what might have been the same, e.g., ''even if Philip had not chosen the chocolate ice-cream sundae, he would have developed an allergic reaction'' has been neglected compared to counterfactual thinking about what might have been different, e.g., ''if only Philip had not chosen the chocolate ice-cream sundae, he would not have developed an allergic reaction''. We report the first systematic comparison of the two sorts of thinking in two experiments. The first experiment showed that counterfactual ''if only'' thoughts about an antecedent event lead people to judge the event to be more causally related to the outcome, whereas semifactual ''even if'' thoughts lead people to judge the antecedent event to be less causally related to the outcome. In addition, the experiment showed that generating counterfactual ''if only'' thoughts increases emotional reactions such as regret, whereas generating semifactual ''even if'' thoughts decreases such reactions. The second experiment, along with a replication experiment, showed that when people complete ''if only'' and ''even if'' sentence stems, they focus on different alternative antecedents to the outcome: ''if only'' thoughts focus on alternatives that would undo the outcome whereas ''even if'' thoughts focus on alternatives that would not undo it, from among a set of available alternative antecedents in which either all, some, or none would undo the outcome. The implications of the results for theories of thinking about what might have been are discussed.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/13546780143000125
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 35,457
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Fact, Fiction, and Forecast.Nelson Goodman & Andrew G. Van Melsen - 1955 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 16 (2):271-273.
Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky, Eds.Daniel Kahneman - 1982 - In Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic & Amos Tversky (eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press.
Crediting Causality.Barbara A. Spellman - 1997 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 126 (4):323-348.
Even If.Jonathan Bennett - 1982 - Linguistics and Philosophy 5 (3):403 - 418.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Indicatives, Concessives, and Evidential Support.Igor Douven & Sara Verbrugge - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (4):480-499.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Recognition of Proofs in Conditional Reasoning.John Best - 2005 - Thinking and Reasoning 11 (4):326 – 348.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
53 ( #120,534 of 2,285,031 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #231,908 of 2,285,031 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature