Questioning the preparatory function of counterfactual thinking

Abstract

Why do individuals mentally modify reality (e.g., "If it hadn't rained, we would have won the game")? According to the dominant view, counterfactuals primarily serve to prepare future performance. In fact, individuals who have just failed a task tend to modify the uncontrollable features of their attempt (e.g., "If the rules of the game were different, I would have won it"), generating counterfactuals that are unlikely to play any preparatory role. By contrast, they generate prefactuals that focus on the controllable features of their ensuing behavior (e.g., "If I concentrate more, Iwill win the next game"). Here, we test whether this tendency is robust and general.Studies 1a and 1b replicate this tendency and show that it occurs regardless of whether individuals think about their failures or their successes. Study 2 shows that individuals generate relatively few controllable counterfactuals, unless explicitly prompted to do so. These results raise some questions regarding the generality of the dominant view according to which counterfactuals mainly serve a preparatory function.

The Functional Theory of Counterfactual Thinking: New Evidence, New Challenges, New Insights

“…Intriguingly, in that same paper, a study of marathon runners reflecting on their performance revealed a very different rate of 68% of counterfactuals focusing on personally controllable actions. In a third paper by Mercier et al (2017), using laboratory tasks involving word search or syllogisms, the rate of counterfactuals that centered on controllable action hovered between 9% and 35%. An aspect of all three of these papers has been to benchmark the rate of controllable counterfactuals against the rate of controllable prefactuals (i.e., future-focused if-then contingencies, Epstude, Scholl, & Roese, 2016); the general finding was that the latter are more likely to focus on controllable actions than the former.…”

Perceptions of Entrepreneurs and Innovators Regarding Radical Innovation: Fundamentals, Requirements, and Method

“…When thoughts are focused on what might have been, it provides for and facilitates improvement for and of the future, as counter-factual thoughts are archetypally activated by a failed goal, and they specify what might have been done in order to achieve the goal (Dator, 1998). This type of thought generally tends to produce counter-factual thoughts after failure has occurred, rather than after a success and, therefore, counter-factual thinking can be closely related to emotion, social perceptions, and self-understanding (Mercier, et al, 2016). Counter-factuals tend to focus on alternative outcomes that may be perceived as better alternatives to what might be, also known as upward counter-factuals; or as worse than actuality, known as downward counter-factuals.…”

Looking Behind and Looking Ahead: Personality Differences in Counterfactual and Prefactual Thinking

“…CFT has also been linked to future planning (Epstude & Roese, 2008) but compared to future thoughts, it is more likely to focus on uncontrollable events (Ferrante et al 2013;Mercier et al, 2017) and in doing so, may also allow individuals to excuse past failures (Byrne, 2016).…”

“…Simulating future possibilities plays a key role in planning and goal setting (Epstude et al, 2016) by allowing individuals to consider the consequences of different actions and events. CFT has also been linked to future planning (Epstude & Roese, 2008) but compared with future thoughts, it is more likely to focus on uncontrollable events (Ferrante et al, 2013;Mercier et al, 2017) and in doing so, may also allow individuals to excuse past failures (Byrne, 2016). The CFT that is most functional is that which is self-focused and which concerns how events might have turned out better (termed upward CFT).…”