Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Counterfactual Thinking

Counterfactual Thinking

Counterfactual thinking is a cognitive process wherein individuals mentally reconstruct alternative versions of past events, often beginning with “what if” or “if only.” This reflective mechanism plays a significant role in shaping emotional experiences and guiding future behavior. Though typically triggered by unfavorable or unexpected outcomes, counterfactual thinking can also emerge in mundane, everyday decisions and experiences, revealing its deep entrenchment in human cognition.Types of...

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

The Bradford Hill criteria serve as guidelines for establishing causative links in epidemiological research. Beyond Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality, key criteria also include Biological Gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experiment, and Analogy. These principles assist scientists in assessing the likelihood of causation in complex biological contexts. Below is a summary of these concepts:

Causality in Epidemiology

Causality in Epidemiology

Causality or causation is a fundamental concept in epidemiology, vital for understanding the relationships between various factors and health outcomes. Despite its importance, there's no single, universally accepted definition of causality within the discipline. Drawing from a systematic review, causality in epidemiology encompasses several definitions, including production, necessary and sufficient, sufficient-component, counterfactual, and probabilistic models. Each has its strengths and...

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

The Bradford Hill criteria are a group of principles that provide a framework to determine a causal relationship between a specific factor and a disease. There are nine criteria that are pivotal in assessing causality in epidemiological studies. Here's a closer look at Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality criteria with definitions and examples:

Fundamental Attribution Error

Fundamental Attribution Error

According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is called the fundamental attribution...

Personal Choice and Fate Attributions

Personal Choice and Fate Attributions

Some individuals interpret life events as a consequence of their personal choices and actions, while others believe that outcomes are dictated by fate or destiny. This divergence in perspective has been examined in psychological and cross-cultural studies, particularly in relation to religious faith and cultural beliefs about causality.Fate and Personal ResponsibilityPeople who emphasize personal responsibility view events as direct consequences of their decisions. For instance, breaking a leg...

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by

Same author

Causal information changes how we reason: a mixed-methods analysis of decision-making with causal information.

Frontiers in cognition·2026

Same author

Seeing, hearing, and feeling causation.

Cognitive psychology·2026

Same author

Investigating the analytical robustness of the social and behavioural sciences.

Nature·2026

Same author

Imagining and building wise machines: the centrality of AI metacognition.

Trends in cognitive sciences·2026

Same author

Corrigendum to 'If not me, then who? Responsibility and replacement' [Cognition 242 (2024) 105646].

Cognition·2025

Same author

How children map causal verbs to different causes across development.

Nature human behaviour·2025

Same journal

Pronoun Resolution in Turkish: The Interplay of Referential Form, Word Order, and Implicit Causality.

Cognitive science·2026

Same journal

What's in a Color?: Language, Synesthesia, and Categorical Perception.

Cognitive science·2026

Same journal

Reasoning Beyond Explicit Rules: Adults' and Children's Use of Closure Principles in Novel Cases.

Cognitive science·2026

Same journal

Intermediary Object States Are Activated by Sentences Describing Completed Events.

Cognitive science·2026

Same journal

Large Language Models Estimate Fine-Grained Human Color-Concept Associations.

Cognitive science·2026

Same journal

Computational Models of Causal Reasoning: Bayesian Accounts of Normative Violations.

Cognitive science·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 9, 2026

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Published on: July 22, 2025

Causal responsibility and counterfactuals.

David A Lagnado¹, Tobias Gerstenberg, Ro'i Zultan

¹Department of Cognitive, Perceptual & Brain Science, University College London. d.lagnado@ucl.ac.uk

Cognitive Science

|July 17, 2013

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

People

Keywords:

Attribution Causality Counterfactuals Criticality Pivotality Responsibility Shared responsibility

More Related Videos

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal

Published on: April 18, 2017

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 9, 2026

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Published on: July 22, 2025

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal

Published on: April 18, 2017

Area of Science:

Cognitive Science
Philosophy of Mind
Artificial Intelligence

Background:

Attributing responsibility is complex when multiple agents contribute to a joint outcome.
Over-determination poses challenges for traditional counterfactual theories of causal responsibility.

Purpose of the Study:

To explore a general framework for assigning responsibility in multi-agent contexts.
To propose a novel model of intuitive responsibility judgments.

Main Methods:

Drawing on the structural model account of actual causation and its extension to responsibility judgments.
Reviewing theoretical and empirical issues in causal responsibility literature.
Conducting a new experiment manipulating pivotality and criticality.

Main Results:

A novel model of responsibility judgments is proposed, based on pivotality and criticality.
The model explains existing empirical results and is supported by new experimental data.
Pivotality (making a difference) and criticality (perceived importance) are key factors.

Conclusions:

The proposed model offers a nuanced understanding of how people assign responsibility in complex scenarios.
Emphasizes the interconnectedness of causality, counterfactuals, and responsibility attribution.
Suggests potential extensions for broader applications in causal reasoning.