This site uses cookies, including third parties. To continue, you must accept our policy by clicking on "Yes, I accept".

.

Explaining intention to reduce red and processed meat in the UK and Italy using the Theory of Planned Behaviour, meat-eater identity, and the Transtheoretical Model.

Wolstenholme, E., Carfora, V., Catellani, P., Poortinga, V. & Whitmarsh, L. (2021). Appetite, 166, 105467. 

Why do consumers intend to purchase natural food? Integrating theory of planned behavior, value-belief-norm theory, and trust.

Carfora, V., Cavallo, C., Catellani, P., Giudice, T.D., & Cicia, G. (2021). Nutrients, 13, 1904. 

A cognitive-emotional model to explain message framing effects: Reducing meat consumption. 

Carfora, V., Pastore, M. & Catellani, P. (2021). Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 583209. 

Hindsight bias and electoral outcomes: Satisfaction counts more than winner-loser status

Bertolotti, M. & Catellani, P. (2021). Social Cognition, 39, 201–224. 

Framing messages on the economic impact of climate change policies: Effects on climate believers and climate skeptics

Bertolotti, M., Catellani, P., & Nelson, T. (2021). Environmental Communication, 15, 715-730. 

How expert witnesses’ counterfactuals influence causal and responsibility attributions of mock jurors and expert judges. 

Catellani, P., Bertolotti, M., Vagni, M., & Pajardi, D. (2021). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35, 3-17.   

sistemi-intelligentiCatellani, P. (2010). Sistemi Intelligenti, 22, 209-220. pdf

 

W

hen reasoning about judicial cases, people often compare reality with its alternatives, what happened with what could or should have happened. While doing this, they may refer to various types of legal and extra-legal norms. In this paper, I review research results on how people engage in counterfactual reasoning in the judicial context. Some studies have shown that the spontaneous use of counterfactual reasoning may produce a biased decision, leading jurors to focus attention on aspects that are not relevant to the legal evaluation of the case at hand. Other studies, however, have suggested that a more controlled use of counterfactual thinking may reduce reference to legally irrelevant norms. These results suggest that instructions and training programmes aimed at fostering the generation and comparison of several counterfactual alternatives may improve the quality of judicial decision making.

editore-32Vai al sito dell'editore

 


 

Patrizia Catellani

Professore ordinario
di Psicologia Sociale
Dipartimento di Psicologia
Università Cattolica di Milano
Largo Gemelli, 1
I-20123 Milano
Tel: 02-72342906
Cell.: 3356741468
Fax: 02-72342280
E-mail: patrizia.catellani@unicatt.it