The effects of counterfactual defences on social judgements

Abstract

Research on counterfactuals (‘If only…’) has seldom considered the effects of counterfactual communication, especially in a defensive context. In three studies, we investigated the effects of counterfactual defences employed by politicians. We assumed that self‐focused upward counterfactuals (‘If only I…, the outcome would have been better’) are a form of concession, other‐focused upward counterfactuals (‘If only they…, the outcome would have been better’) are a form of excuse, and self‐focused downward counterfactuals (‘If only I…, the outcome would have been worse’) are a form of justification. In Study 1, a counterfactual defence led to a more positive evaluation of the politician than a corresponding factual defence. Of the two types of defence, the counterfactual defence reduced the extent to which the politician was held responsible for the past event and was perceived as more convincing. In Study 2, counterfactual excuse and counterfactual justification were equally effective and led to a more positive evaluation of the politician than counterfactual concession. In Study 3, the higher effectiveness of counterfactual justification was independent from perceived ideological similarity with the politician, supporting the strength of this defence. These results show that counterfactual defences provide subtle communication strategies that effectively influence social judgements. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Collective harmony as a moderator of the association between other-referent upward counterfactual thinking and depression

“…After a negative life event, people often imagine the good things that could have happened to them if not for other people's actions. Other-referent upward counterfactual thinking is a cognitive activity that pertains to envisioning how negative life events could have been better and how other people were responsible for such undesired outcomes (Callander, Brown, Tata, & Regan, 2007;Rye, Cahoon, Ali, & Daftary, 2008) (or "other-focussed"; Catellani & Bertolotti, 2014;Roese & Epstude, 2017). For example, after not having achieved an important goal, one may think: "If only my colleague was more responsible, then this project would've been successful.".…”

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

“…Our findings therefore contribute to extending this area of research from the intra- In our research, counterfactuals were produced by an allegedly neutral and authoritative source, namely an expert witness. Past research carried out in the political field has found that the influence of counterfactual communication can diminish or even disappear when the counterfactual source is perceived as unreliable (Catellani & Bertolotti, 2014b). This might be the case also in the judicial field.…”

“…As mentioned in the introduction, according to previous research the focus of counterfactuals often affects not only causal explanation but also responsibility attribution, with individuals being more likely to attribute responsibility for the outcome to the actor on whom the counterfactual thought is focused on (Catellani & Bertolotti, 2014a; Nario‐Redmond & Branscombe, 1996). We expected that this would be the case also when lay jurors and judges are exposed to counterfactuals embedded in an expert witness' report.…”

“…Early research (Tal-Or, Boninger, Poran, & Gleicher, 2004) found that persuasive messages including counterfactual statements were more effective than messages not including counterfactual statements, but such effect persisted in the long term only when participants were prompted to generate themselves counterfactual thoughts. Subsequent studies analysed the use of counterfactuals in impression formation (Wong, 2010) and impression management (Bertolotti, Catellani, Douglas, & Sutton, 2013;Catellani & Bertolotti, 2014a, 2014b, showing that providing individuals with a counterfactual statement regarding an actor can effectively influence their judgements on the actor, the reconstructed event and even the source of the counterfactual statement itself. For instance, upward counterfactuals (e.g., "If he/she had acted in a different way, things would be better now") can be an effective form of implicit criticism, as they subtly imply that the actions of a chosen actor are causally linked to the outcome, and that the actor is therefore responsible for it (Catellani & Bertolotti, 2014b).…”

“…We know much less about how the use of counterfactuals in communication may influence causal and responsibility attributions, in everyday and judicial contexts. Research carried out in the political domain has shown that counterfactual communication has subtle but significant effects on the way individuals think about past events and evaluate people involved in them (see Catellani & Bertolotti, 2014a, 2014b; Markman & Tetlock, 2000; McMullen & Markman, 2000). Some studies indicate that this may be also the case in the judicial context, as counterfactuals used in the presentation of court cases can affect jurors' causal and responsibility attributions (e.g., Catellani, Alberici, & Milesi, 2004).…”