Individual differences and counterfactual thinking

The study explored the impact of reasoning capabilities and five personality dimensions, measured 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.