Abstract:Abstract Few empirical studies have examined how people understand counterfactual explanations for other people’s decisions, for example, “ if you had asked for a lower amount, your loan application would have been approved”. Yet many current Artificial Intelligence (AI) decision support systems rely on counterfactual explanations to improve human understanding and trust. We compared counterfactual explanations to causal ones, i.e., “because you asked for a high amount, your loan application was not approved ”, for an AI’s decisions in a familiar domain (alcohol and driving) and an unfamiliar one (chemical safety) in four experiments (n = 731). Participants were shown inputs to an AI system, its decisions, and an explanation for each decision; they attempted to predict the AI’s decisions, or to make their own decisions. Participants judged counterfactual explanations more helpful than causal ones, but counterfactuals did not improve the accuracy of their predictions of the AI’s decisions more than causals (Experiment 1). However, counterfactuals improved the accuracy of participants’ own decisions more than causals (Experiment 2). When the AI’s decisions were correct (Experiments 1 and 2), participants considered explanations more helpful and made more accurate judgements in the familiar domain than in the unfamiliar one; but when the AI’s decisions were incorrect, they considered explanations less helpful and made fewer accurate judgements in the familiar domain than the unfamiliar one, whether they predicted the AI’s decisions (Experiment 3a) or made their own decisions (Experiment 3b). The results corroborate the proposal that counterfactuals provide richer information than causals, because their mental representation includes more possibilities.

Counterfactual thoughts in complex causal domain: content, benefits, and implications for their function

Counterfactual Thinking: an Fmri Study on Changing the Past for a Better Future

Cognitive neuroscience of human counterfactual reasoning

Improving workplace safety by thinking about what might have been: A first look at the role of counterfactual thinking

Counterfactual curiosity: motivated thinking about what might have been

Counterfactual thinking in cooperation dynamics

Improving Workplace Safety by Thinking About What Might Have Been

Improving Visualization Interpretation Using Counterfactuals.

On Counterfactual Reasoning

Inference and Explanation in Counterfactual Reasoning

The Sin of Prediction: When Mentally Simulated Alternatives Compete With Reality

Two Theories in Counterfactual Thinking:Norm Theory Perspective and Goal-Directed Perspective

How Closeness of Results and Categorical Cutoff Points Induce Counterfactual Thinking and Influence Individuals' Satisfaction

Counterfactuals for the Future

How people reason with counterfactual and causal explanations for Artificial Intelligence decisions in familiar and unfamiliar domains

Counterfactual simulation in causal cognition

An improved probabilistic account of counterfactual reasoning.

Counterfactual Reasoning: Sharpening Conceptual Distinctions in Developmental Studies

Counterfactual reasoning: From childhood to adulthood

Counterfactual curiosity in real decisions: The roles of outcome valence and aging

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