After starting the chapter with a brief survey of studies showing the links between counterfactual thinking and responsibility attribution in the judicial context, we focus our attention on studies investigating the so-called exceptionality effect; namely, how counterfactual mutability may be constrained by abnormality in the sense of violation of intrapersonal norms. We then devote the major part of the chapter to the two categories of psychosocial constraints envisaged by our Social Context Model of Counterfactual Constraints. First, we present recent research results supporting the existence and the strength of a nonconformity effect, according to which, under given circumstances, people would be especially inclined to focus counterfactuals on actors’ behaviors that do not conform to social norms. Then, our attention shifts from the context of the event to the context in which the event is reconstructed. We offer empirical evidence of how role-related expectations and aims of people reconstructing the event may affect counterfactual mutability. In the final discussion, we suggest that the Social Context Model of Counterfactual Constraints might be usefully extended from the judicial context to other real-life contexts in which counterfactual thinking is widely employed.

Catellani, P., Milesi, P., When the social context frames the case: Counterfactuals in the courtroom, in D. Mandel, D. H. &. P. C. (ed.), The psychology of counterfactual thinking, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London 2005: 183- 198. 10.4324/9780203963784 [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/166101]

When the social context frames the case: Counterfactuals in the courtroom

Catellani, Patrizia
Primo
;
Milesi, Patrizia
Secondo
2005

Abstract

After starting the chapter with a brief survey of studies showing the links between counterfactual thinking and responsibility attribution in the judicial context, we focus our attention on studies investigating the so-called exceptionality effect; namely, how counterfactual mutability may be constrained by abnormality in the sense of violation of intrapersonal norms. We then devote the major part of the chapter to the two categories of psychosocial constraints envisaged by our Social Context Model of Counterfactual Constraints. First, we present recent research results supporting the existence and the strength of a nonconformity effect, according to which, under given circumstances, people would be especially inclined to focus counterfactuals on actors’ behaviors that do not conform to social norms. Then, our attention shifts from the context of the event to the context in which the event is reconstructed. We offer empirical evidence of how role-related expectations and aims of people reconstructing the event may affect counterfactual mutability. In the final discussion, we suggest that the Social Context Model of Counterfactual Constraints might be usefully extended from the judicial context to other real-life contexts in which counterfactual thinking is widely employed.
2005
Inglese
The psychology of counterfactual thinking
9780415758659
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group
Catellani, P., Milesi, P., When the social context frames the case: Counterfactuals in the courtroom, in D. Mandel, D. H. &. P. C. (ed.), The psychology of counterfactual thinking, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London 2005: 183- 198. 10.4324/9780203963784 [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/166101]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10807/166101
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 15
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact