How expert witnesses' counterfactuals influence causal and responsibility attributions of mock jurors and expert judges

Abstract

Past research has shown that counterfactual ("If…then…") thoughts influence causal and responsibility attribution in the judicial context. However, little is known on whether and how the use of counterfactuals in communication affects lay jurors' and judges' evaluations. In two studies, we asked mock lay jurors (Study 1) and actual judges (Study 2) to read a medical malpractice case followed by an expert witness report, which included counterfactuals focused on either the physician, the patient, or external factors. Results showed that counterfactual focus had a strong effect on both lay jurors' and judges' causal and responsibility attributions. Counterfactual focus also moderated the effect of outcome foreseeability on responsibility attribution. Discussion focuses on how counterfactual communication can direct causal and responsibility attribution and reduce the importance of other factors known to influence judicial decision-making. The potential implications of these findings in training programs and debiasing interventions are also discussed.

Diversity in sociotechnical machine learning systems

“…This issue has become painfully salient in a recent example of bias in healthcare algorithms, where using health costs as a proxy for health needs resulted in systematic underestimation of the needs of Black patients, due to racial disparities in access to and spending on care (Obermeyer et al, 2019). As previous research has highlighted, individuals’ ability to anticipate and evaluate relevant hypothetical scenarios is likely to be correlated with their sociocultural identities and assumed social roles (Catellani et al, 2021). In participatory and value-sensitive design approaches, awareness of this type of correlations have traditionally led to an emphasis on diversity in prototype and foresight studies (Friedman and Hendry, 2019).…”

The life cycle of conspiracy theories: evidence from a long-term panel survey on conspiracy beliefs in Italy

“…Consistent with this idea, a conspiracy theory is often a much more intriguing and seductive story with respect to mainstream narratives (Lamberty and Imhoff, 2021). As an additional competitive advantage of conspiracy theories to strict logical analyses, we can also add that individuals usually prefer deterministic and controllable causes with respect to probabilistic and uncontrollable factors (Girotto et al, 1991;Hilton et al, 2010), as well as human factors to natural ones (Catellani et al, 2021). Therefore, conspiracist explanations of events could make intuitively more sense than alternative explanations, despite being objectively more convoluted.…”

COVID-19: Risk Factors and Protective Role of Resilience and Coping Strategies for Emergency Stress and Secondary Trauma in Medical Staff and Emergency Workers—An Online-Based Inquiry

“…Counterfactual thinking occurs especially when people are faced with critical situations or when they perceive that their actions are associated with failures, errors, and the inability to change external events. Counterfactual thinking intervenes in the decision-making processes of everyday life and belongs to both common sense and experts [34]; it tends to be associated with a higher risk of developing stress and psychopathological symptoms [33][34][35].…”