Self-handicapping, excuse making, and counterfactual thinking: Consequences for self-esteem and future motivation.

Researchers interested in counterfactual thinking have often found that upward counterfactual thoughts lead to increased motivation to improve in the future, although at the cost of increased negative affect. The present studies suggest that because upward counterfactual thoughts indicate reasons for a poor performance, they can also serve as excuses. In this case, upward counterfactual thoughts should result in more positive self-esteem and reduced future motivation. Five studies demonstrated these effects in the context of self-handicapping. First, upward counterfactual thinking was increased in the presence of a self-handicap. Second, upward counterfactual thoughts indicating the presence of a self-handicap protected self-esteem following failure. Finally, upward counterfactual thoughts that protect self-esteem reduced preparation for a subsequent performance as well as performance itself. These findings suggest that the consequences of upward counterfactuals for affect and motivation are moderated by the goals of the individual as well as the content of the thoughts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Counterfactual potency.

Counterfactual thoughts typically take the form of implied or explicit if–then statements. We propose that the multiplicative combination of “if likelihood” (the degree to which the antecedent condition of the counterfactual is perceived to be likely) and “then likelihood” (the perceived conditional likelihood of the outcome of the counterfactual, given the antecedent condition) determine the strength and impact of counterfactuals. This construct, termed counterfactual potency, is a reliable predictor of the degree of influence of counterfactual thinking upon judgments of regret, causation, and responsibility. Through 4 studies, we demonstrate the predictive power of this construct in a variety of contexts and show that it plays a causal role in determining the strength of the effects of counterfactual thought. Implications of counterfactual potency as a central factor of counterfactual influence are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Counterfactual thinking: From what might have been to what may be.

Consideration of counterfactual alternatives to negative outcomes, particularly when the counterfactuals change those outcomes, has repeatedly been shown to intensify regret and judgments of blame. Two studies examined the influence of the relevance of the counterfactual to future behavior on Ss' judgments of regret and self-blame after a negative outcome. Results indicated that a dispositional tendency to consider the future consequences of current behavior can ameliorate the negative affect caused by thinking about how a negative outcome could have been avoided. Results also suggested that this amelioration is particularly likely to occur when Ss are induced to focus on the future. These findings are discussed in terms of understanding the positive functions counterfactuals may serve, particularly with respect to the determination of future behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Propensities and counterfactuals: The loser that almost won.

Close counterfactuals are alternatives to reality that "almost happened." A psychological analysis of close counterfactuals offers insights into the underlying representation of causal episodes and the inherent uncertainty attributed to many causal systems. The perception and representation of causal episodes is organized around possible focal outcomes, evoking a schema of causal forces competing over time. A distinction between 2 kinds of assessments of outcome probability is introduced: dispositions, based on causal information available prior to the episode, and propensities, based on event cues obtained from the episode itself. The distinction is critical to the use of almost, which requires the attribution of a strong propensity to the counterfactual outcome. The final discussion focuses on characteristic differences between psychological and philosophical approaches to the analysis of counterfactuals, causation, and probability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Counterfactual thinking and regulatory focus: Implications for action versus inaction and sufficiency versus necessity.

Counterfactual thinking is associated with regulatory focus in a way that explains previous empirical incongruities, such as whether additive counterfactuals (mutations of inactions) occur more or less frequently than subtractive counterfactuals (mutations of actions). In Experiment 1, regulatory focus moderated this pattern, in that additive counterfactuals were activated by promotion failure, whereas subtractive counterfactuals were activated by prevention failure. In Experiment 2, additive counterfactuals evoked a prevention focus and expressed causal necessity. In Experiment 3, dejection activated additive counterfactuals, whereas agitation activated subtractive counterfactuals. These findings illuminate the interconnections among counterfactual thinking, motivation, and goals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When doing better means feeling worse: The effects of categorical cutoff points on counterfactual thinking and satisfaction.

Counterfactual thoughts of "what might have been" have been shown to influence emotional responses to outcomes. The present investigation extends this research by proposing a model of how categorical cutoff points, or arbitrary values that impose qualitative boundaries on quantitative outcomes, induce counterfactual thoughts and influence individuals' satisfaction. In particular, just making a cutoff for a category is hypothesized to elicit downward counterfactual comparisons, boosting satisfaction, whereas just missing a cutoff prompts upward counterfactual thoughts, decreasing satisfaction. In some circumstances, this asymmetry can reverse the usual relationship between objective outcome and satisfaction, causing people who do objectively better to feel worse than those they outperform. This hypothesis is supported by the results of 1 naturalistic study and 2 scenario experiments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Mood, self-esteem, and simulated alternatives: Thought-provoking affective influences on counterfactual direction.

Four studies indicated that moods and self-esteem can influence counterfactual thoughts. This was shown for counterfactuals generated for hypothetical situations (Study 1), for recalled life events (Study 2), and for agreement with counterfactual statements after laboratory tasks (Studies 3 and 4). High self-esteem (HSE) and low self-esteem (LSE) persons generated (Studies 1 and 2) or agreed to (Studies 3 and 4) more downward (worse than actuality) than upward (better than actuality) counterfactuals when in good moods, but they diverged in reactions to bad moods: HSE persons thought more about downward counterfactuals, whereas LSE persons thought more about upward counterfactuals. HSE persons felt better after generating downward counterfactuals (Study 2) and took longer to agree to analogous statements (Studies 3 and 4) in bad moods, suggesting attempts at mood repair. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

'It's Not My Fault-But Only I Can Change It": Counterfactual and Prefactual Thoughts of Managers.

In testing for the self-serving bias in performance evaluation, the authors propose that comparing managers' counterfactual and prefactual thoughts about subordinates' performance is more conclusive than the attributional approach and also offers practical advantages. In a study with 120 managers, a 4-way interaction of subordinate performance, temporal perspective, direction, and reference confirmed the predicted pattern. Managers' thoughts about how a weak performance could have been enhanced had external references, but thoughts about how such a performance could be enhanced in the future focused on the leader. This asymmetry was only observed for weak performance. Results are discussed with regard to biases in leaders' performance evaluations and to how counter- and prefactual thoughts could be used for leadership research and practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When debiasing backfires: Accessible content and accessibility experiences in debiasing hindsight.

Two studies demonstrated that attempts to debias hindsight by thinking about alternative outcomes may backfire and traced this to the influence of subjective accessibility experiences. Participants listed either few (2) or many (10) thoughts about how an event might have turned out otherwise. Listing many counterfactual thoughts was experienced as difficult and consistently increased the hindsight bias, presumably because the experienced difficulty suggested that there were not many ways in which the event might have turned out otherwise. No significant hindsight effects were obtained when participants listed only a few counterfactual thoughts, a task subjectively experienced as easy. The interplay of accessible content and subjective accessibility experiences in the hindsight bias is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Mental simulation of causality.

We propose that people imagine alternatives to reality (counterfactuals) in assessing the casual role of a prior event. This process of mental simulation (D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, 1982) is used to derive novel predictions about the effects of default events on causal attribution. A default event is the alternative event that most readily comes to mind when a factual event is mentally mutated. The factual event is judged to be causal to the extent that its default undoes the outcome. In Experiment 1, a woman was described as having died from an allergic reaction to a meal ordered by her boss. When the boss was described as having considered another meal without the allergic ingredient, people were more likely to mutate his decision and his causal role in the death was judged to be greater than when the alternative meal was also said to have the allergic ingredient. In Experiment 2, a paraplegic couple was described as having died in an auto accident after having been denied a cab ride. People perceived the cabby's refusal to take the couple as a stronger cause of the deaths when his taking the couple would have undone the accident than when it would have not have. We conclude that an adequate theory of causal judgment requires an understanding of these counterfactual simulations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Judgment dissociation theory: An analysis of differences in causal, counterfactual and covariational reasoning.

Research suggests that causal judgment is influenced primarily by counterfactual or covariational reasoning. In contrast, the author of this article develops judgment dissociation theory (JDT), which predicts that these types of reasoning differ in function and can lead to divergent judgments. The actuality principle proposes that causal selections focus on antecedents that are sufficient to generate the actual outcome. The substitution principle proposes that ad hoc categorization plays a key role in counterfactual and covariational reasoning such that counterfactual selections focus on antecedents that would have been sufficient to prevent the outcome or something like it and covariational selections focus on antecedents that yield the largest increase in the probability of the outcome or something like it. The findings of 4 experiments support JDT but not the competing counterfactual and covariational accounts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self-esteem and counterfactual thinking.

Two studies examined the relation between self-esteem and counterfactual thinking (consideration of "might-have-been" alternatives to reality). Ss imagined themselves in scenarios with another actor that resulted in either success or failure. Ss then "undid" the outcome by altering events that preceded the outcome. Following success, high self-esteem (HSE) Ss were more likely than low self-esteem (LSE) Ss to mutate their own actions. Following failure, LSE Ss were more likely than HSE Ss to mutate their own actions. Also, the structure of counterfactuals was influenced by outcome valence but not by self-esteem: Subtractive structures (in which antecedents are removed) were elicited by success, whereas additive structures (in which antecedents are added) were elicited by failure. The importance of the self and individual differences in self-esteem to counterfactual thinking is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Thinking within the box: The relational processing style elicited by counterfactual mind-sets.

By comparing reality to what might have been, counterfactuals promote a relational processing style characterized by a tendency to consider relationships and associations among a set of stimuli. As such, counterfactual mind-sets were expected to improve performance on tasks involving the consideration of relationships and associations but to impair performance on tasks requiring novel ideas that are uninfluenced by salient associations. The authors conducted several experiments to test this hypothesis. In Experiments 1a and 1b, the authors determined that counterfactual mind-sets increase mental states and preferences for thinking styles consistent with relational thought. Experiment 2 demonstrated a facilitative effect of counterfactual mind-sets on an analytic task involving logical relationships; Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrated that counterfactual mind-sets structure thought and imagination around salient associations and therefore impaired performance on creative generation tasks. In Experiment 5, the authors demonstrated that the detrimental effect of counterfactual mind-sets is limited to creative tasks involving novel idea generation; in a creative association task involving the consideration of relationships between task stimuli, counterfactual mind-sets improved performance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Counterfactual thinking and posttraumatic stress reactions.

Preoccupation with alternative outcomes (counterfactual thinking) is a central component of the ruminations of trauma victims. The questions investigated were whether such thinking should be distinguished from general rumination and whether elements of counterfactual thinking might relate to the process of adjustment. A sample of assault victims was interviewed. They completed a battery of self-report scales and thought-listing procedures. Frequency of counterfactual thinking was closely associated with continuing levels of posttraumatic distress. However, high availability of counterfactuals (as indexed by verbal fluency) was related to potentially adaptive outcomes, such as the generation of behavioral plans. In addition, as expected, levels of different aspects of counterfactual thinking were moderated by metacognitive control strategies as a function of time since the trauma. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

因果推断三种分析框架及其应用综述

介绍因果推断所涉及的基本概念及其三种分析框架:反事实框架、潜在结果模型和结构因果模型。首先,从反事实框架介绍因果效应的发端;然后,从基于反事实的两个因果推断分析框架:潜在结果模型和结构因果模型,来分别阐述两个分析框架所涉及的关键理论和应用方法。其中,潜在结果模型使用数学和可计算的语言对因果理论进行阐述,是一种将假设、命题和结论清晰化表达的计算模型,其在原因和结果变量已知的前提下定量分析原因变量对结果变量的因果效应,并对缺失的潜在结果进行补齐,使观察性研究的效果接近试验性研究。结构因果模型则是一种基于图论的因果推断方法,它将事件分为观察、干预和反事实三个层级,并通过do运算将干预和反事实层级的因果关系都降维成可以通过统计学手段解决的问题。最后,探讨了现今多领域内因果推断的应用场景,并总结了三种分析框架的异同点。      

Counterfactual thinking.

Counterfactuals are mental representations of alternatives to the past and produce consequences that are both beneficial and aversive to the individual. These apparently contradictory effects are integrated into a functionalist model of counterfactual thinking. The author reviews research in support of the assertions that (a) counterfactual thinking is activated automatically in response to negative affect, (b) the content of counterfactuals targets particularly likely causes of misfortune, (c) counterfactuals produce negative affective consequences through a contrast-effect mechanism and positive inferential consequences through a causal-inference mechanism, and (d) the net effect of counterfactual thinking is beneficial. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The functional basis of counterfactual thinking.

Counterfactual thoughts ("might-have-been" reconstructions of past outcomes) may serve an affective function (feeling better) and a preparative function (future improvement). Three studies showed that counterfactuals varying in their direction and structure may differentially serve these 2 functions. Direction influenced affect such that downward (vs upward) counterfactuals caused more positive affect. Direction influenced intentions such that upward (vs downward) counterfactuals heightened intentions to perform success-facilitating behaviors. Both direction and structure influenced performance on an anagram task such that upward and additive (vs downward and subtractive) counterfactuals engendered greater improvement. These findings suggest that people can strategically use downward counterfactuals to make themselves feel better and upward and additive counterfactuals to improve performance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events.

Argue that attribution patterns reflect implicit theories acquired from induction and socialization and hence differentially distributed across human cultures. In particular, the authors tested the hypothesis that dispositionalism in attribution for behavior reflects a theory of social behavior more widespread in individualist than collectivist cultures. Study 1 demonstrated that causal perceptions of social events but not physical events differed between American and Chinese students. Study 2 found English-language newspapers were more dispositional and Chinese-language newspapers were more situational in explanations of the same crimes. Study 3 found that Chinese survey respondents differed in weightings of personal dispositions and situational factors as causes of recent murders and in counterfactual judgments about how murders might have been averted by changed situations. Implications for issues in cognitive, social, and organizational psychology are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)