Why blame Bob? Probabilistic generative models, counterfactual reasoning, and blame attribution
نویسندگان
چکیده
We consider an approach to blame attribution based on counterfactual reasoning in probabilistic generative models. In this view, people intervene on each variable within their model and assign blame in proportion to how much a change to a variable would have improved the outcome. This approach raises two questions: First, what structure do people use to represent a given situation? Second, how do they choose what alternatives to consider when intervening on an event? We use a series of coin-tossing scenarios to compare empirical data to different models within the proposed framework. The results suggest that people sample their intervention values from a prior rather than deterministically switching the value of a variable. The results further suggest that people represent scenarios differently when asked to reason about their own blame attributions, compared with the blame attributions they believe others will assign.
منابع مشابه
An improved probabilistic account of counterfactual reasoning.
When people want to identify the causes of an event, assign credit or blame, or learn from their mistakes, they often reflect on how things could have gone differently. In this kind of reasoning, one considers a counterfactual world in which some events are different from their real-world counterparts and considers what else would have changed. Researchers have recently proposed several probabi...
متن کاملCausation in Legal and Moral Reasoning
Causation looms large in legal and moral reasoning. People construct causal models of the social and physical world to understand what has happened, how and why, and to allocate responsibility and blame. This chapter explores people’s commonsense notion of causation, and shows how it underpins moral and legal judgments. As a guiding framework it uses the causal model framework (Pearl, 2000) roo...
متن کاملCognitive neuroscience of human counterfactual reasoning
Counterfactual reasoning is a hallmark of human thought, enabling the capacity to shift from perceiving the immediate environment to an alternative, imagined perspective. Mental representations of counterfactual possibilities (e.g., imagined past events or future outcomes not yet at hand) provide the basis for learning from past experience, enable planning and prediction, support creativity and...
متن کاملEVect of factual versus counterfactual thinking on blame, guilt, and shame in prisoners
The present study tested the prediction that counterfactual thinking would have a stronger ampliWcatory eVect on guilt than on shame and that the eVect would be mediated by self-blame. Ninety sentenced prisoners were instructed to think either counterfactually or factually about the role they played in the events leading to their capture, conviction, and sentencing prior to reporting on their l...
متن کاملFinding fault: Causality and counterfactuals in group attributions
Attributions of responsibility play a critical role in many group interactions. This paper explores the role of causal and counterfactual reasoning in blame attributions in groups. We develop a general framework that builds on the notion of pivotality: an agent is pivotal if she could have changed the group outcome by acting differently. In three experiments we test successive refinements of th...
متن کامل