Similarities and differences in understanding negative and affirmative counterfactuals and causal assertions: Evidence from eye-tracking

Abstract

Two eye-tracking experiments compared affirmative and negative counterfactuals, “if she had (not) arrived early, she would (not) have bought roses” and affirmative and negative causal assertions, “Because she arrived (did not arrive) early, she bought (did not buy) roses.” When participants heard a counterfactual, they looked on screen at words corresponding to its conjecture (“roses”), and its presupposed facts (“no roses”), whereas for a causal assertion, they looked only at words corresponding to the facts. For counterfactuals, they looked at the conjecture first, and later the presupposed facts, and at the latter more than the former. The effect was more pronounced for negative counterfactuals than affirmative ones because the negative counterfactual’s presupposed facts identify a specific item (“she bought roses”), whereas the affirmative counterfactual’s presupposed facts do not (“she did not buy roses”). Hence, when participants were given a binary context, “she did not know whether to buy roses or carnations,” they looked primarily at the presupposed facts for both sorts of counterfactuals. We discuss the implications for theories of negation, the dual meaning of counterfactuals, and their relation to causal assertions.