Counterfactual thinking

1. Counterfactual thinking Andreas Internseminar 15. mars

2. Counterfactual thoughts: Mental representations of alternatives to the past or present. Thoughts of what might have been. - Conditional propositions: ”If -> then… What if… If only” - Comparison: Upward: negative affect, serves a preparatory function Downward:promotes satisfaction, coping Although hypothetical, have consequences for affects, cognitions, evaluations.

3. Central questions • What triggers CFT? - negative affect, closeness • What determines content? - controllability, normality , acion vs. inaction • What are the consequences? • Amplify and shape emotional reactions (evaluation by contrast) • Pitt falls: unproductive, ruminating over past events that cannot be changed. Suboptimal decisions – anticipated regret. • Preparative function: negative affect -> signal that problems are acute and require corrective action. Suggestscausal conclusions that help us prepare for future challenges. • Current projects: one related to content, one related to consequences.

4. Role of Contrast in CFT - going to the extreme(Teigen, Kanten) • Background: CFT assumed to depend on closeness between F – CF, principle of minimal mutations from reality. Yet people often generate CF outcomes that appear to be quite extreme. Grateful to be born I Norway – not developing country. Lucky to have survived – not just injured. • Method: scenario studies – compare perceived consequences of the same event presented as either factual or counterfactual. • Preliminary results: Consequences are expected to be more extreme when event is presented as counterfactual than when presented as factual. Distinguish between closeness in a causal sense and in an evaluative sense. • Next: - CFT more schematic and more prototypical than reflections around factual events? - CFT answers what could have happened, not what would have happened?

5. Evaluation of positive vs. CF-positive outcomes(Svartdal, Gjerpe) Background: Actual outcomes are often evaluated with reference to counterfactual alternatives. Counterfactuals shape and amplify emotions. Scenario studies by Svartdal show that avoiding something negative can be evaluated as equally good as attaining something positive, but that the two situations are psychologically distinct. The first involves relief, the second joy. We tried to replicate this finding by giving people actual experiences. Method: Participants played card game, instructed that elements of skill and chance were involved. Points earned would serve as tickets in a weighted lottery for flaxlodd. One group (F) came out significantly better than the other (CF), and so “winning nothing” was a more salient comparison for the CF group. Repeated self report measures were: overall positive-negative evaluations, joy and relief. Preliminary Results: Both groups appear to have rated the outcome of the game as approximately equally positive, and the participants in the group that just barely qualified for the lottery were significantly more relieved. Next: • Does the group that just barely made the lottery value participation in the lottery more? • Are participants in CF group in a more prevention oriented state?