Cited by 282Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsMemory Processes and Influences

Mental models and counterfactual thoughts about what might have been

Byrne, Ruth M.J.·2002·Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

Counterfactual thoughts about what might have been ('if only em leader ') are pervasive in everyday life. They are related to causal thoughts, they help people learn from experience and they influence diverse cognitive activities, from creativity to probability judgements. They give rise to emotions and social ascriptions such as guilt, regret and blame. People show remarkable regularities in the aspects of the past they mentally 'undo' in their counterfactual thoughts. These regularities provide clues about their mental representations and cognitive processes, such as keeping in mind true possibilities, and situations that are false but temporarily supposed to be true.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01974-5

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Byrne, R. M. J.
Affiliations
Trinity College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Byrne, Ruth M.J.
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-10
Volume
6
Issue
10
Pages
426-431
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2161797325
Cited by
282
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 16
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Johnson and Johnson
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
counterfactual reasoning, mental models, causal reasoning, experiential learning, creativity, probability judgment, guilt and regret, blame, mental representation, counterfactual emotions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review