TABLE 4.

Two typical protocols of the two sorts of reasoning from two representative obsessive patients, reasoning about the story eliciting guilt (refutatory strategy) and the story describing another’s guilt (corroboratory strategy) in Experiment 3.

Refutatory strategy for story eliciting protagonist’s guilt

Corroboratory strategy for story describing other’s guilt

–Surely it doesn’t depend on that, but if I had a cold, it is. The mere fact that I sneezed made the air full of germs. (The participant corroborates the negative outcome.) –Maybe the window was open. If so, the germs could have gone out (to refute the negative outcome). –Nevertheless, they could have contaminated the kid; they could have been everywhere in the air (to corroborate the negative outcome). –Surely it was a coincidence. Maybe she already had a cold (a refutation). –But what if this is not the case? (A corroboration.)

The teacher had a cold, and she sneezed. So, the probability that she contaminated my niece is very high. (The participant corroborates the negative outcome.) Moreover, she was playing with the kid (a corroboration). So, the air was contaminated. I cannot see how it could not have been contaminated, although they were in the playground (a corroboration). Moreover, they were so close (a corroboration). So, if my niece fell ill, she was truly contaminated by the sneezes (a corroboration).

Comments in parentheses highlight the crucial cues to the strategy.