The Bidirectional Relation Between Counterfactual Thinking and Closeness, Controllability, and Exceptionality

Abstract

In four experiments, we explored the inferences people make when they learn that counterfactual thinking has occurred. Experiment 1 (N = 40) showed that knowing that a protagonist had engaged in counterfactual thinking (compared to no counterfactual thinking) resulted in participants inferring that the past event was closer in time to the protagonist, but there was no difference in inferring how close the past event was between knowing that a protagonist made many or a single counterfactual statement(s). Experiment 2 (N = 80) confirmed that participants were not affected by the number of counterfactual statements they read when inferring temporal closeness. Experiment 3 (N = 49) demonstrated that participants who learned that a protagonist had engaged in counterfactual thinking were more likely to infer that the protagonist experienced the controllable event. Experiment 4 (N = 120) indicated that participants who learned that a protagonist had engaged in counterfactual thinking were more likely to infer that the protagonist experienced the exceptional event. We concluded that the existence (but not the number) of counterfactual thoughts can lead people to infer that events were close, exceptional, and controllable, which suggests that the relations between closeness/controllability/exceptionality and counterfactual thinking are bidirectional. These results showed that as well as making inferences based on facts about the real world, people also make inferences about the real world based on hypothetical worlds.

Decision Reversibility and Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Counterfactual Thinking and Anticipated Regret

“…6 In addition, the excessive attention individuals pay to the advantages of the rejected option and the disadvantages of the chosen option during counterfactual thinking can also influence their evaluation of the decision outcome. 20,25 These reasonings suggest that reversible decisions induce more counterfactual thinking than irreversible decisions, and that an increase in counterfactual thinking has a negative impact on satisfaction. Thus, we suggest the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2.…”

“…Compared with irreversible decisions, reversible decisions give people more freedom of choice, which may increase counterfactual thinking. 6 , 19 Counterfactual thinking refers to when individuals deny events that have occurred or situations that cannot be changed, thereby constructing an alternative hypothesis; 20 , 21 it is typically expressed through thoughts phrased as “what could have happened”. 22 People spontaneously engage in upward counterfactual thinking after reversible decisions (eg, “would I have had a better outcome if I had chosen a different option”), and the amount of counterfactual thinking in such cases is significantly higher than that for irreversible decisions.…”