Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Reasoning counterfactually: making inferences about things that didn't happen.

Valerie A Thompson1, Ruth M J Byrne

  • 1Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. valerie.thompson@usask.ca

Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition
|November 27, 2002
PubMed
Summary

Understanding subjunctive conditionals impacts reasoning. Counterfactual interpretations lead to different logical inferences, particularly with negative conditionals and modus tollens, regardless of content familiarity.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Imaginative Thought.

Journal of cognition·2026
Same author

Inference and Imagination.

Topics in cognitive science·2026
Same author

A single process for deductive and inductive inference? Examining the impact of conclusion typicality and argument validity on immediate inferences.

Cognitive psychology·2026
Same author

Fast reasoning uses semantic activation as an intuitive cue.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same author

Fast reasoning and metacognition.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2025
Same author

Introduction to Progress and Puzzles of Cognitive Science: Introduction to a Wiley Virtual Issue.

Cognitive science·2024

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Logic and Reasoning
  • Linguistic Semantics

Background:

  • Subjunctive conditionals, often termed counterfactuals, describe hypothetical situations contrary to fact.
  • Understanding these conditionals is crucial for complex reasoning, decision-making, and causal inference.
  • Previous research has explored the truth conditions and interpretations of conditional statements, but the link to specific inferential patterns requires further elucidation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the relationship between how individuals interpret subjunctive conditionals and the logical inferences they accept.
  • To determine if a counterfactual interpretation of subjunctive statements influences the endorsement of specific deductive and inductive reasoning patterns.

Main Methods:

  • Participants were presented with subjunctive conditional statements and scenarios.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Reasoners' interpretations of the conditionals (counterfactual vs. non-counterfactual) were assessed.
  • The likelihood of endorsing various inferences, including consistency judgments and modus tollens, was recorded.

    • Main Results:

    • Reasoners adopting a counterfactual interpretation were significantly more likely to deem scenarios inconsistent with the conditional statement.
    • A counterfactual interpretation also increased the likelihood of endorsing negative inferences, such as modus tollens.
    • These effects were robust across variations in content familiarity, statement polarity (affirmative/negative), and logical relation (conditional/biconditional).

    Conclusions:

    • The interpretation of subjunctive conditionals, specifically whether they are treated as counterfactual, critically shapes deductive reasoning.
    • Counterfactual interpretations align with a more stringent evaluation of conditional statements and facilitate the use of inferences like modus tollens.
    • These findings highlight the semantic flexibility of conditional language and its impact on cognitive processes in logic and reasoning.