Citation

Williams CW, Lees-Haley PR, Price JR. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1996; 26(23): 2100-2112.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1996, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01789.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The effects of counterfactual thinking and causal attribution on accident-related judgments were investigated. Subjects read about a couple who died in an automobile accident where mutability of the outcome was varied. Mutability refers to the extent that a factual event can be mentally altered, with mutable outcomes more easily imagined otherwise than immutable outcomes. In comparison to the immutable scenario, participants reading the mutable scenario saw the accident as more avoidable, ascribed a greater causal role to the accident perpetrator, and perceived the perpetrator having more causal control over the couple's deaths. In addition to increased anger, a harsher financial penalty was levied against the accident perpetrator by participants in the mutable than in the immutable condition. Multiple regression analysis supported the efficacy of attribution theory to explain the affective and behavioral consequences of counterfactual thinking in accident-related judgments.