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 Concept Videos

Hindsight Biases01:12

Hindsight Biases

3.4K
Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Can you relate this to the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" now? 
3.4K
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II01:28

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

369
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:
369
Null and Alternative Hypotheses01:16

Null and Alternative Hypotheses

8.3K
The actual hypothesis testing begins by considering two hypotheses. They are termed  the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. These hypotheses contain opposing viewpoints.
The null hypothesis, denoted by H0 is a statement of no difference between the variables—they are not related. This can often be considered the status quo. As  a result if you cannot accept the null, it requires some action.
The alternative hypothesis, denoted by H1 or Ha, is a claim about the...
8.3K
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I01:30

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

341
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:
341
Reason and Intuition01:37

Reason and Intuition

6.5K
The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the...
6.5K
Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?01:17

Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?

28.0K
The outcome of any hypothesis testing leads to rejecting or not rejecting the null hypothesis. This decision is taken based on the analysis of the data, an appropriate test statistic, an appropriate confidence level, the critical values, and P-values. However, when the evidence suggests that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, is it right to say, 'Accept' the null hypothesis?
There are two ways to indicate that the null hypothesis is not rejected. 'Accept' the null...
28.0K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Do infants recognize relationships indirectly?

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2026
Same author

The first location heuristic: An early emerging way of judging where things belong.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same author

Why young children think actions aren't swayed by sunk costs: Testing two accounts.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same author

The Moral Standing of Created Agents: Bad Is More Owned Than Good.

Personality & social psychology bulletin·2026
Same author

The domino error: A novel mistake in simple physical reasoning.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same author

Not All Authors Are Equal: Moral Judgments of Plagiarism From AI and Human Sources.

Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science·2026
Same journal

Mind wandering during first- and foreign-language reading.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Anxiety modulates voluntary attentional orienting to emotional gaze cues: Eye movements for pro- and anti-saccades.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Faster key-press responses to front vowels than back vowels when matching heard vowels with represented vowels.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Testing the interleaving effect without response bias: A forced-choice reevaluation of Kornell and Bjork (2008).

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

The impact of social interaction on abstract concepts.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 22, 2025

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal
06:45

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

Published on: April 18, 2017

6.2K

Close counterfactuals and almost doing the impossible.

Tiffany Doan1, Stephanie Denison2, Ori Friedman2

  • 1Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue W, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada. t3doan@uwaterloo.ca.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
|July 24, 2023
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

People perceive unrealized outcomes differently based on possibility versus probability. Judgments of "almost happened" prioritize possibility, while "easily could have happened" focuses on probability.

Keywords:
CognitionCounterfactualsPossibilityProbabilityPropensity

More Related Videos

Creating Virtual-hand and Virtual-face Illusions to Investigate Self-representation
06:53

Creating Virtual-hand and Virtual-face Illusions to Investigate Self-representation

Published on: March 1, 2017

13.3K
The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

759

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 22, 2025

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal
06:45

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

Published on: April 18, 2017

6.2K
Creating Virtual-hand and Virtual-face Illusions to Investigate Self-representation
06:53

Creating Virtual-hand and Virtual-face Illusions to Investigate Self-representation

Published on: March 1, 2017

13.3K
The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

759

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Decision Science

Background:

  • Humans frequently engage in counterfactual thinking, considering events that did not occur.
  • Some counterfactuals feel remarkably close to reality, leading to phrases like 'almost happened' or 'easily could have.'

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how possibility influences judgments of counterfactual closeness.
  • To determine if this influence differs between 'almost happened' and 'easily could have happened' counterfactuals.

Main Methods:

  • Four preregistered experiments involving 1,228 participants.
  • Manipulation of possibility and probability to assess their impact on counterfactual closeness judgments.

Main Results:

  • Judgments of 'almost happened' were more sensitive to possibility than probability.
  • Judgments of 'easily could have happened' treated possibility as another probability variable.
  • Propensity had a smaller, consistent impact on both judgment types.

Conclusions:

  • Possibility plays a distinct role in counterfactual closeness judgments.
  • The type of counterfactual (almost vs. easily could have) determines the cognitive weight given to possibility versus probability.