THE ROLE OF COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING AND CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION IN ACCIDENT-RELATED JUDGMENTS

The effects of counterfactual thinking and causal attribution on accid ent-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 m entally altered, with mutable outcomes more easily imagined otherwise than immutable outcomes. In comparison to the immutable scenario, part icipants reading the mutable scenario saw the accident as more avoidab le, ascribed a greater causal role to the accident perpetrator, and pe rceived the perpetrator having more causal control over the couple's d eaths. In addition to increased anger, a harsher financial penalty was levied against the accident perpetrator by participants in the mutabl e than in the immutable condition. Multiple regression analysis suppor ted the efficacy of attribution theory to explain the affective and be havioral consequences of counterfactual thinking in accident-related j udgments.