The role of counterfactuals in judgments of affective reactions to outcomes was examined. Subjects read about individuals who experienced gains or losses as a result of either deciding to take action and make a change or deciding not to take any new action. In addition, the salience of the counterfactual alternative was manipulated. Past results were replicated in the case of negative outcomes: Individuals who lost money on the basis of action were judged as feeling worse than those who lost money on the basis of inaction. This occurred under both high and low salience of the counterfactual. With positive consequences, however, exaggerated affect for outcomes associated with action rather than inaction occurred only when the counterfactual alternative was made highly salient. Implications for the construction and use of counterfactuals are discussed, and a process model is developed on the basis of the data and the proposed conceptualization.

No abstract

No abstract