Show simple item record

dc.contributor.creatorEgan, Suzanne M.
dc.contributor.creatorFrosch, Caren A.
dc.contributor.creatorHancock, Emily N.
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-11T11:24:52Z
dc.date.available2018-12-11T11:24:52Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifier.citationSuzanne M. Egan et al. What else could have caused it? Counterfactuals, Enablers and Alternatives, 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, Galway, Ireland, August 30-September 1, 2010.en_US
dc.identifier.otherhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/282291961_What_else_could_have_caused_it_Counterfactuals_Enablers_and_Alternatives
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10395/2546
dc.descriptionWhat else could have caused it? Counterfactuals, enablers and alternatives.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to explore why people focus on enablers rather than causes in their counterfactual thinking (i.e., how people undo the past). We report the results of an experiment that compared causes and enablers in likelihood and the number of available alternatives. The results indicate that the number of alternatives may explain the focus of counterfactual thoughts. The findings are discussed in the context of previous research on counterfactual thinking and causality.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherScience Foundation Irelanden_US
dc.rights.urihttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/282291961_What_else_could_have_caused_it_Counterfactuals_Enablers_and_Alternativesen_US
dc.subjectCounterfactual thinkingen_US
dc.subjectCausationen_US
dc.subjectEnablersen_US
dc.subjectMental model theoryen_US
dc.titleWhat else could have caused it? Counterfactuals, enablers and alternativesen_US
dc.typeConference reporten_US
dc.type.supercollectionall_mic_researchen_US
dc.type.supercollectionmic_published_revieweden_US
dc.description.versionYesen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record