Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:03:13.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Précis of The Rational Imagination: How People Create Alternatives to Reality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2008

Ruth M. J. Byrne
Ruth M. J. Byrne
Affiliation:
School of Psychology and Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Dublin 2, [email protected]://www.tcd.ie/Psychology/Ruth_Byrne/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The human imagination remains one of the last uncharted terrains of the mind. People often imagine how events might have turned out “if only” something had been different. The “fault lines” of reality, those aspects more readily changed, indicate that counterfactual thoughts are guided by the same principles as rational thoughts. In the past, rationality and imagination have been viewed as opposites. But research has shown that rational thought is more imaginative than cognitive scientists had supposed. In The Rational Imagination, I argue that imaginative thought is more rational than scientists have imagined. People exhibit remarkable similarities in the sorts of things they change in their mental representation of reality when they imagine how the facts could have turned out differently. For example, they tend to imagine alternatives to actions rather than inactions, events within their control rather than those beyond their control, and socially unacceptable events rather than acceptable ones. Their thoughts about how an event might have turned out differently lead them to judge that a strong causal relation exists between an antecedent event and the outcome, and their thoughts about how an event might have turned out the same lead them to judge that a weaker causal relation exists. In a simple temporal sequence, people tend to imagine alternatives to the most recent event. The central claim in the book is that counterfactual thoughts are organised along the same principles as rational thought. The idea that the counterfactual imagination is rational depends on three steps: (1) humans are capable of rational thought; (2) they make inferences by thinking about possibilities; and (3) their counterfactual thoughts rely on thinking about possibilities, just as rational thoughts do. The sorts of possibilities that people envisage explain the mutability of certain aspects of mental representations and the immutability of other aspects.

Keywords

conditionalcounterfactualcreativitydeduction“if only”thoughtsimaginationrationalityreasoningsimulation
Type
Main Articles
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 5-6 , December 2007 , pp. 439 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ansburg, P. I. & Dominowski, R. L. (2000) Promoting insightful problem-solving. Journal of Creative Behaviour 34(1):30–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanasiadou, A. & Dirven, R., eds. (1997) On conditionals again John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrouillet, P. & Lecas, J.-F. (1999) Mental models in conditional reasoning and working memory. Thinking and Reasoning 5:289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boninger, D. S., Gleicher, F. & Strathman, A. (1994) Counterfactual thinking: From what might have been to what may be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. & O'Brien, D. (1998) Mental logic. Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branscombe, N. R., N'gbala, A., Kobrynowicz, D. & Wann, D. L. (1997) Self and group protection concerns influence attributions but they are not determinants of counterfactual mutation focus. British Journal of Social Psychology 36:387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branscombe, N. R., Owen, S., Garstka, T.A. & Coleman, J. (1996) Rape and accident counterfactuals: Who might have done otherwise and would it have changed the outcome? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26:1042–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucciarelli, M. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2005) Naïve deontics: A theory of meaning, representation, and reasoning. Cognitive Psychology 50:159–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, R. M. J. (1997) Cognitive processes in counterfactual thinking about what might have been. In: The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, vol. 37, ed. Medin, D., pp. 105–54. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, R. M. J. (2005) The rational imagination: How people create alternatives to reality. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, R. M. J., Espino, O. & Santamaria, C. (1999) Counterexamples and the suppression of inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 40:347–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, R. M. J. & McEleney, A. (2000) Counterfactual thinking about actions and failures to act. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26:1318–31.Google ScholarPubMed
Byrne, R. M. J., Segura, S., Culhane, R., Tasso, A. & Berrocal, P. (2000) The temporality effect in counterfactual thinking about what might have been. Memory and Cognition 28:264–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, R. M. J. & Tasso, A. (1999) Deductive reasoning with factual, possible, and counterfactual conditionals. Memory and Cognition 27:726–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catellani, P. & Milesi, P. (2001) Counterfactuals and roles: Mock victims' and perpetrators' accounts of judicial cases. European Journal of Social Psychology 31:247–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, P. N. & Holyoak, K. J. (1985) Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology 17:391–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, P. W. (1997) From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review 104:367–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1946) The contrary-to-fact conditional. Mind 2005:289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosmides, L. (1989) The logic of social exchange. Cognition 31:187–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costello, F. J. & Keane, M. T. (2001) Testing two theories of conceptual combination: Alignment and diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27:255–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Davis, C. G., Lehman, D. R., Silver, R. C., Wortman, C. M. & Ellard, J. H. (1996) Self-blame following a traumatic event: The role of perceived avoidability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22:557–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. G., Lehman, D. R., Wortman, C. M., Silver, R. C. & Thompson, S. C. (1995) The undoing of traumatic life events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21:109–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, D. & Parpal, M. (1989) Mental addition versus subtraction in counterfactual reasoning: On assessing the impact of personal actions and life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57:5–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1977) Linguistic factors in reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 29:297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1989) Bias in reasoning Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fiddick, L., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (2000) No interpretation without representation: The role of domain-specific representations and inferences in the Wason selection task. Cognition 77:1–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galinsky, A. D. & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000) Counterfactuals as behavioural primes: Priming the simulation of heuristics and consideration of alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 36:384–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. & Hug, K. (1992) Domain specific reasoning: Social contracts, cheating, and perspective change. Cognition 43:127–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G. & Selten, R., eds. (2001) Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T. & Medvec, V. H. (1995) The experience of regret: What, when, and why. Psychological Review 102:379–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsberg, M. L. (1986) Counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence 30:35–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girotto, V., Legrenzi, P. & Rizzo, A. (1991) Event controllability in counterfactual thinking. Acta Psychologia 78:111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldvarg, E. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001) Naive causality: A mental model theory of causal meaning and reasoning. Cognitive Science 25(4):565–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, P. (2000) The work of the imagination Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, P. L., German, T. & Mills, P. (1996) Children's use of counterfactual thinking in causal reasoning. Cognition 61:233–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, H. L. & Honore, A. M. (1959) Causation and the law Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D. R. (1985) Metamagical themas: Questing for the essence of mind and pattern Penguin.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K. J. & Cheng, P. W. (1995) Pragmatic reasoning with a point of view. Thinking and Reasoning 1:289–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. (1739/2000) A treatise of human nature. Reprint edition, ed. Norton, D. F. & Norton, M. J.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1981) Formal logic: Its scope and limits, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. T. (1986) The knowledge of what might have been: Affective and attributional consequences of near outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 12:51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983) Mental models Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001) Mental models and deduction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5:434–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Byrne, R. M. J. (1989) Only reasoning. Journal of Memory and Language 28:313–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991) Deduction Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002) Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review 109:646–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. & Miller, D. (1986) Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review 93:136–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1982) The simulation heuristic. In: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases, ed. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A., pp. 201–208. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, M. T. (1997) What makes an analogy difficult? The effects of order and causal structure in analogical mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 123:946–67.Google Scholar
King, M. L (1968) “I've been to the mountaintop” speech delivered on 3rd April, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee. Available online at: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htmGoogle Scholar
Klauer, K. C., Jacobsen, T. & Migulla, G. (1995) Counterfactual processing: Test of a hierarchical correspondence model. European Journal of Social Psychology 25:577–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, R. T. & Grabowecky, M. (1995) Escape from linear time: Prefrontal cortex and conscious experience. In: The cognitive neurosciences, ed. Gazzaniga, M. S., pp. 1357–71. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Landman, J. (1987) Regret and elation following action and inaction: Affective responses to positive versus negative outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13:524–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973) Counterfactuals Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mandel, D. R. (2003a) Counterfactuals, emotions, and context. Cognition and Emotion 17:139–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandel, D. R. & Lehman, D. R. (1996) Counterfactual thinking and ascriptions of cause and preventability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71:450–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, S. & Rips, L. J. (1979) Conditional reasoning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 18:199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloy, R. & Byrne, R. M. J. (2000) Counterfactual thinking about controllable events. Memory and Cognition 28:1071–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCloy, R. & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002) Semifactual “Even if” thinking. Thinking and Reasoning 8:41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEleney, A. & Byrne, R. (2006) Spontaneous counterfactual thoughts and causal explanations. Thinking and Reasoning 12(2):235–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullen, M. N. & Markman, K. D. (2000) Downward counterfactuals and motivation: The wake-up call and the Pangloss effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26:575–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullen, M. N. & Markman, K. D. (2002) Affective impact of close counterfactuals: Implications of possible futures for possible pasts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38:64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1872/1956) A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive, 8th edition. Longmans, Green, & Reader.Google Scholar
Miller, D. T. & Gunasegaram, S. (1990) Temporal order and the perceived mutability of events: Implications for blame assignment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:1111–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. T. & Turnbull, W. (1990) The counterfactual fallacy: Confusing what might have been with what ought to have been. Social Justice Research 4:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. T., Turnbull, W. & McFarland, C. (1990) Counterfactual thinking and social perception: Thinking about what might have been. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 22, ed. Zanna, P., pp. 305–31. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Miller, G. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976) Language and perception Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, M. A. & Byrne, R. M. J. (2007) Single step and multiple step insight problems. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Oakhill, J. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1985) Rationality, memory, and the search for counterexamples. Cognition 20:79–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollock, J. L. (1986) Subjunctive reasoning Reidel.Google Scholar
Quelhas, A. C. & Byrne, R. M. J. (2003) Reasoning with deontic and counterfactual conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning 9:43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1972) Methods of logic, 3rd edition. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Riggs, K. J. & Peterson, D. M. (2000) Counterfactual thinking in preschool children: Mental state and causal inferences. In: Children's reasoning and the mind, ed. Mitchell, P. & Riggs, K. J.. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Riggs, K. J., Peterson, D. M., Robinson, E. J. & Mitchell, P. (1998) Are errors in false belief tasks symptomatic of a broader difficulty with counterfactuality? Cognitive Development 13:73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rips, L. J. (1994) The psychology of proof MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritov, I. & Baron, J. (1990) Reluctance to vaccinate: Omission bias and ambiguity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 3:263–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritov, I. & Baron, J. (1992) Status-quo and omission biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainties 5:49–61.Google Scholar
Roese, N. J. (1994) The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66:805–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roese, N. J. (1997) Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin 121:133–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roese, N. J. & Olson, J. M., eds. (1995) What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Roese, N. J., Sanna, L. J. & Galinsky, A. D. (2005) The mechanics of imagination: Automaticity and counterfactual thinking. In: The new unconscious, ed. Hassin, R., Uleman, J. & Bargh, J. A., pp. 138–70. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sanna, L. J., Schwarz, N. & Stocker, S. L. (2002b) When debiasing backfires: Accessible content and accessibility experiences in debiasing hindsight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28:497–502.Google ScholarPubMed
Santamaria, C. & Espino, O. (2002) Conditionals and directionality: On the meaning of if versus only if. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 55A:41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santamaria, C., Espino, O. & Byrne, R. M. J. (2005) Counterfactual and semifactual conditionals prime alternative possibilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31:1149–54.Google ScholarPubMed
Seeleu, E. P., Seeleu, S.M., Wells, G.L. & Windschitl, P. D. (1995) Counterfactual constraints. In: What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking, ed. Roese, N. J. & Olson Erlbaum, J. M..Google Scholar
Sherman, S. J. & McConnell, A. R. (1996) Counterfactual thinking in reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10:113–24.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., Cara, F. & Girotto, V. (1995) Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition 52:3–39.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Girotto, V. (2003) Does the selection task detect cheater detection? In: New directions in evolutionary psychology, ed. Fitness, J. & Sterelny, K.. Macquarie Monographs in Cognitive Science. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1968) A theory of conditionals. In: Studies in logical theory, ed. Rescher, N.. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1999) Who is rational? Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1997) Thinking styles Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. & Lebow, R. N. (2001) Poking counterfactual holes in covering laws: Cognitive styles and historical reasoning. American Political Science Review 95:829–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. & Parker, G. (2005) Counterfactual thought experiments: Why we cannot live without them and how we can learn to live with them. In: Unmaking the West: Counterfactuals, contingency and causation, ed. Tetlock, P. E., Lebow, R. N. & Parker, G., pp. 3–35. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, V. A. & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002) Reasoning about things that didn't happen. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28:1154–70.Google ScholarPubMed
Torrens, D., Thompson, V. A. & Cramer, K. M. (1999) Individual differences and the belief-bias effect: Mental models, logical necessity and abstract reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 5:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, C. R. & Byrne, R. M. J. (2004) Counterfactual thinking: The temporal order effect. Memory and Cognition 32:369–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J. & Sifonis, C. (2004) The role of specificity and abstraction in creative idea generation. Creativity Research Journal 16:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, G. L. & Gavanski, I. (1989) Mental simulation of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56:161–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisniewski, E. J. (1996) Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 35:434–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeelenberg, M., van der Bos, K., van Dijk, E. & Pieters, R. (2002) The inaction effect in the psychology of regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82:314–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeelenberg, M., Van der Pligt, J. & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998a) Undoing regret on Dutch television. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24:1113–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Bonnefon, J.-F. & Deng, C. (2004) Regret and reasons to act or not to act. Unpublished manuscript. Sociology Institute, Shanghai Academy of Social Science.Google Scholar