Other approaches to causal reasoning

1
Other approaches to causal reasoning
2
Counterfactual reasoning

• Norm theory (Kahneman Miller, 1986)

Daniel Kahneman
Dale Miller
3
Who blames himself more? (A)

• Mr Brown left his office at a usual hour. This
  time he did not have to collect his children from
  the kindergarten, so he decided to take a more
  interesting road home. He drove along the sea
  coast with beautiful sites, much more beautiful
  than if he took his usual road through the
  downtown area.
• Turning into one of the small streets he suddenly
  notices a truck that headed at him. The driver
  was obviously drunk. He did not manage to break.
  Mr Brown was taken to hospital with a heavy spine
  injury.

4
Who blames himself more? (B)

• Mr Brown left his office at usual time. He
  promised his wife that on his way back he will
  collect children from the kindergarten, therefore
  he drove his usual road home, through the
  downtown. Sometime he liked to take another road,
  along the sea-side where sites are more beautiful
  but this time he did not make the exception
• Turning into one of the small streets he suddenly
  notices a truck that headed at him. The driver
  was obviously drunk. He did not manage to break.
  Mr Brown was taken to hospital with a heavy spine
  injury.

5

• Who blames himself more?
• Why?

6
Who is more angry ?

• Mr White and Mr Green were going abroad. They
  were taking different planes but both planes were
  leaving at exactly the same time. Therefore they
  took one taxi to the airport. Unfortunately at
  that time of the day the traffic was heavy and
  they arrived at the airport 30 minutes after the
  planned departure of their planes.
• Mr White learned that his plane left according to
  the schedule. Mr Green learned that his plane was
  late and left only five minutes ago.

7

• Who is more angry?
• Why?

8
Who regrets more his decision?

• Mr Cohen has shares in the company A. During the
  lasy year he frequently considered moving his
  shares to the company B, but finally decided to
  stay with A. Recently he learned that if he
  decided to move his shares, he would gain 3,000
  PLN.
• Mr Rosenberg also had shares in the company A but
  after long consideration decided to move them to
  company D. Recently he learned that if he stayed
  in the company A, he would gain 3,000 PLN.  

9

• Who regrets more?
• Why?

10
Normal vs. abnormal statesNorm theory by
Kahneman Miller

• Norm something that cannot be different
• Abnormal event something that can be
  different, that can be undone
• The easier it is to imagine an alternative state
  of things ? the more abnormal is the event ? the
  stronger emotional reaction
• Reaction to normal states weaker than to abnormal
  states

11
Alternative possibilities and emotional amplitude

• The more available alternative to an action ? the
  stronger emotional reaction to the consequences
  of the action
• Negative emotions
• Arriving 5 minutes late at the airport - more
  upsetting than arriving 30 minutes late
•  Positive emotions
• Joy when winning in a lotto higher if the coupon
  was filled in the last minute than a month ago
• K.H. Teigen the most lucky are those who can
  easily imagine the worst possible scenario

12
It could be different (worse... better....)

• Why are brown medal winners more happy than
  silver medal winners?

13
Factors determining perceived normality/abnormalit
y of actions

• Exception vs. Routine
• Typical vs. Atypical situations
• Actions vs. Inactions
• Forced vs. Free choice

14
Exception vs. routine

• Traffic accidents in exceptional situations ?
  more grief than in routine situations 
• Victims robbed in exceptional situations offered
  more financial justifications than victims robbed
  in routine situations

15
Actions vs. inactions

• Human being as a risk averse creature
• Omission bias consequences of actions more
  weighted than consequences of inaction
• It is easier to undo action than inaction
• Status quo bias consequences of change more
  weighted than consequences of sticking to the old
• It is easier to undo change than no change
• win-stay-lose-shift strategy change strategy
  only when the outcomes are negative
• Negative outcomes easier to undo than positive
  outcomes

16
Omissions vs. commissions

• It is easier to imagine refraining from action
  than taking an action (omission bias - J.Baron)
• More regret when negative consequences follow an
  action than inaction
• More joy when positive consequences follow an
  action than inaction (Landman) 
• More responsibility attributed for consequences
  of actions than inactions (e.g., higher penalty)
• more guilt experienced when harm comes from
  action than inaction

17
Counterfactual thinking and content of emotions

• Some emotions - product of counterfactual
  thinking
• grief/joy
• Regret
• luck/bad luck
• pride/shame
• envy/jealousy
• gratitude

18
Morality vs competence

• Morality consequences of actions weighted more
  than consequences of inactions
• Competence consequences of inaction weighted
  more than consequences of actions

19
Morality vs. competence
Actors perspective
Observers perspective
After I. Trzepalka (2001)
20
Time perspective

• Short time perspective we regret more what we
  have done (sin of commission)
• In long time perspective we regret more what we
  have not done (sin of omission)

21
Counterfactual reasoning as causal reasoning

• Functions of counterfactuals
• Emotional
• Cognitive
• Types of counterfactuals
• According to the direction of comparisons
• According to the structure of counterfactuals

22

Types of counterfactuals
upward
downward
If X it would be better
If Y it would be worse
additive
If not-Z It would be better
If not-U It would be worse
subtractive
23
Outcome valence and controllability and structure
of counterfactuals (upward vs. downward)
After Roese, 1996
24
Outcome valence and the structure of
counterfactuals (additive vs subtractive)
After Roese, 1996
25
Direction of comparisons and type of outcomes

• Replicable outcomes? upward comparisons (with
  somebody better) ? better performance
• One-time outcomes ? downward comparisons (with
  somebody worse) ? feeling better

26
Activation of counterfactual reasoning

• After negative outcomes rather than after
  positive (If only....)
• Negative outcomes ? additive counterfactuals (I
  only I would have done X)
• Positive outcomes ? subtractive counterfactuals
  (if I would not have done Y)

27
Affect-driven process of counterfactual thinking
Inhibition
Negative affect
Negative outcome
Negative affect
Counterfactual activation
Expectations intentions
Causal reasoning
Source Neal J. Roese James M. Olson (1997)