Counterfactual thinking and recency effects in causal judgment

Revisiting causal pluralism: Intention, process, and dependency in cases of double prevention

Causal pluralism proposes that humans can reason about causes and effects in terms of both dependency and process relations, depending on the scenario. Support for this view is provided by responses to double prevention scenarios in which an affector attempts to bring about an outcome, a preventer attempts to prevent the outcome, and a double preventer intervenes to stop the preventer's prevention attempt. Previous research indicates that reasoners award the affector high causal ratings regardless of whether their action was executed intentionally, whereas reasoners only award the double preventer high causal ratings when the double preventer acts intentionally. These results were interpreted as evidence that intentional actions prompt reasoners to differentially weight separately maintained representations of dependency and process relations. The current study presents three challenges to this causal pluralism account by (1) questioning whether intentionality only affects causal ratings by increasing the weighting placed on dependency relations during reasoning (Experiments 1-2), (2) presenting evidence consistent with the possibility that reasoners interpret the double preventer's action in terms of a process relation (Experiments 1-2), and (3) demonstrating that an unintentional double preventer can receive significantly higher causal ratings than an intentional affector when the order in which the characters act is altered (Experiments 3-4). These results underscore the need to revisit fundamental questions regarding how reasoners form, maintain, and reason over representations of causal scenarios featuring intentional actions.

The cognitive appraisal path of stroke knowledge, coping traits, family functioning and stigma among stroke patients: A moderated parallel mediation model

AIMS

To establish a cognitive appraisal path model that examines the impact of stroke knowledge on stigma with the parallel mediating effects of negative and positive coping traits, as well as the moderating effects of family functioning.

BACKGROUND

Stroke-related stigma, a 'mixture' of negative emotions involving internal criticism and external judgement, has been shown to impair patients' health outcomes. However, the specific factors underlying cognitive appraisals and their pathways remain unknown.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional design.

METHODS

The cross-sectional sample was from two stroke centres in China. Questionnaires were administered to collect sociodemographic data, stroke knowledge, coping traits, family functioning and stigma. Hierarchical regression models and the moderated parallel mediation model were constructed to analyse influencing pathways. The study adhered to the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology guideline.

RESULTS

All 144 samples reported stigma symptoms with a moderate-to-high standardising score. The best hierarchical regression model explains 55.5% of the variance in stigma. The parallel mediation model indicated that negative and positive coping traits co-mediating the association of stroke knowledge and stigma. After adding the family functioning as a moderator, the moderated parallel mediation model was confirmed with adequate fit indices.

CONCLUSION

Among the cognitive appraisal factors affecting stroke-related stigma, stroke knowledge reduces stigma by modifying coping traits, while poor family functioning may serve as an opposing moderator. Notably, when family support is insufficient, enhanced stroke knowledge might paradoxically exacerbate the stigma.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study contributes knowledge on transforming health education and emphasises the pivotal roles of clinical nursing practitioners. In similar global contexts, the study highlights integrating health education, psychological counselling and family support to advance systematic nursing practices.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

None.

Making a positive difference: Criticality in groups

How critical are individual members perceived to be for their group's performance? In this paper, we show that judgments of criticality are intimately linked to considering responsibility. Prospective responsibility attributions in groups are relevant across many domains and situations, and have the potential to influence motivation, performance, and allocation of resources. We develop various models that differ in how the relationship between criticality and responsibility is conceptualized. To test our models, we experimentally vary the task structure (disjunctive, conjunctive, and mixed) and the abilities of the group members (which affects their probability of success). We show that both factors influence criticality judgments, and that a model which construes criticality as anticipated credit best explains participants' judgments. Unlike prior work that has defined criticality as anticipated responsibility for both success and failures, our results suggest that people only consider the possible outcomes in which an individual contributed to a group success, but disregard group failure.

The Association Between Interview Day and Rank Order in Plastic Surgery Match: Is Recency Effect to Blame?

INTRODUCTION

Plastic and reconstructive surgery is among the most competitive specialties in the National Resident Matching Program match. Though efforts to institute unbiased and equitable measures of an applicant's success have been made, many barriers still hinder suitable applicants from successfully matching. We sought to identify whether interview day influenced applicants' likelihood of being ranked favorably in both independent and integrated plastic surgery residency programs at a single academic institution.

METHODS

Data from 10 years of independent plastic surgery applicants and 8 years of integrated plastic surgery applicants were queried. Data regarding whether applicants were interviewed on day 1, day 2, or during subinternships (integrated cohort only) and what number they were on the programs rank list were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 226 independent applicants 237 integrated applicants were identified. For integrated applicants, those who interviewed on day 1 were weighted toward worse rank scores. Applicants who interviewed during their subinternship had a bimodal distribution either ranking favorably or poorly. Integrated applicants who interviewed on the second day were more likely to be ranked in the first quartile. For those who interviewed on day 1, the odds of being ranked in the last quartile was 2.34 times higher than those who interviewed on day 2 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrating that interview day may influence an applicant's final rank in the MATCH. Further study is needed to determine if this effect is can be observed in other academic plastic surgery programs.

An interaction effect of norm violations on causal judgment

Existing research has shown that norm violations influence causal judg- ments, and a number of different models have been developed to explain these effects. One such model, the necessity/sufficiency model, predicts an interac- tion pattern in people's judgments. Specifically, it predicts that when people are judging the degree to which a particular factor is a cause, there should be an interaction between (a) the degree to which that factor violates a norm and (b) the degree to which another factor in the situation violates norms. A study of moral norms (N=1000) and norms of proper functioning (N=3000) revealed robust evidence for the predicted interaction effect. The implications of these patterns for existing theories of causal judgments is discussed.

Double Prevention, Causal Judgments, and Counterfactuals

Mike accidentally knocked against a bottle. Seeing that the bottle was about to fall, Jack was just about to catch it when Peter accidentally knocked against him, making Jack unable to catch it. Jack did not grab the bottle, and it fell to the ground and spilled. In double-prevention cases like these, philosophers and nonphilosophers alike tend to judge that Mike knocking into the bottle caused the beer to spill and that Peter knocking into Jack did not cause the beer to spill. This difference in causal judgment is a difficult puzzle for counterfactual theories of causal judgment; if each event had not happened, the outcome would not have, yet there is a difference in people's causal judgments. In four experiments and three supplemental experiments, we confirm this difference in causal judgments. We also show that differences in people's counterfactual thinking can explain this difference in their causal judgments and that recent counterfactual models of causal judgment can account for these patterns. We discuss these results in relation to work on counterfactual thinking and causal modeling.

Regret Now, Compensate It Later: The Benefits of Experienced Regret on Future Altruism

This article explores how experienced regret and relief evoked in a risky gambling task influence subsequent intertemporal pro-social behavior. We apply a dictator game experiment with delayed rewards to investigate the effect on donating behavior by simultaneously the time delay when the recipient accepts the donation and the emotions experienced by the participant. We examine this effect using a choice titration procedure. The results reveal that independent of the prior experienced emotions, participants’ donations decrease as the time delay rises; the hyperbolic model provides a better explanation of this finding. Significantly, experienced regret impacts the shape of the social discount function with delayed rewards, which is reflected in notably different discount rates. Participants who experienced regret exhibit a lower discount rate than those in the relief condition. Note that this distinct type of generosity differs significantly at the 14-day delay but not at the shortest and longest. It follows that regret can promote future altruism and intertemporal pro-social behavior, depending on the delay.

Causal Judgment in the Wild: Evidence from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

When explaining why an event occurred, people intuitively highlight some causes while ignoring others. How do people decide which causes to select? Models of causal judgment have been evaluated in simple and controlled laboratory experiments, but they have yet to be tested in a complex real-world setting. Here, we provide such a test, in the context of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Across tens of thousands of simulations of possible election outcomes, we computed, for each state, an adjusted measure of the correlation between a Biden victory in that state and a Biden election victory. These effect size measures accurately predicted the extent to which U.S. participants (N = 207, preregistered) viewed victory in a given state as having caused Biden to win the presidency. Our findings support the theory that people intuitively select as causes of an outcome the factors with the largest standardized causal effect on that outcome across possible counterfactual worlds.