Counterfactual potency.

By John V. Petrocelli, E. Percy, Steven J. Sherman, Zakary L. Tormala. 2011

87 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Tobias Gerstenberg
2. Ruth M. J. Byrne
3. David A. Lagnado
4. Joshua Knobe
5. Hugh Mccann
6. Tim Miller
7. Tania Lombrozo
8. Wesley Buckwalter

In General Decision Sciences

1. Joshua Knobe
2. Ruth M. J. Byrne
3. David A. Lagnado
4. Tobias Gerstenberg
5. David R. Mandel

In Safety Research

1. Joshua Knobe
2. David A. Lagnado
3. Tobias Gerstenberg
4. Ruth M. J. Byrne
5. David R. Mandel
6. Gesina Schwalbe
7. Bettina Finzel

Citations in the corpus

• Counterfactuals in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Evidence from Human Reasoning (2019, background): “They construct plausible counterfactuals [De Brigard et al., 2013] and can distinguish between those that have a high likelihood and those that do not [Petrocelli et al., 2011].”
• Causal superseding. (2015, background): “Counterfactual reasoning and causal judgment There are many accounts of how counterfactual reasoning interacts with causal judgment (e.g., Gerstenberg, Goodman, Lagnado, & Tenenbaum, 2014; Lewis, 1973; Petrocelli, Percy, Sherman, & Tormala, 2011; but see Mandel, 2003).”
• Counterfactual Thought. (2016, background): “One view is that people zoom in on fault lines in their representation of reality, such as exceptions or controllable events, because these fault lines correspond to events that are most likely to change the outcome (e.g., Petrocelli et al. 2011).”