When are leaders blamed for bad events that never happened? Partisanship and close counterfactual catastrophes

How much blame do leaders deserve for counterfactual catastrophes : disasters that could have occurred under their watch but never did? We propose that when people oppose (vs. support) a leader, they are more likely to answer this question by considering how close the catastrophe came to occurring. In two preregistered experiments (total N = 1927), U.S. participants assigned greater blame for counterfactual catastrophes (e.g., an imagined nuclear attack) to Presidents Trump and Biden when these catastrophes were framed as having been close to occurring rather than distant – but especially when judging the president they opposed (vs. supported). The results reveal a novel way in which counterfactual thinking facilitates partisan reasoning. Evaluating a leader they oppose may decrease people's focus on how a catastrophe never occurred and increase their focus on how it nearly occurred. We discuss how imagination can fuel political polarization. • People sometimes blame leaders for disasters that never happened, but could have. • Blame is stronger when people oppose the leader and the catastrophe felt “close.” • Counterfactual closeness affects blame more when judging an opposed leader. • Imagination can influence moral judgment.