Counterfactual Thinking (CFT)

Counterfactual Thinking (CFT) What is CFT? What causes CFT to happen? What affects the content of CFT? What basic 2 types of CFT exist? What are the consequences of CFT? Is it good or bad?

Counterfactual Thinking (CFT) • Counterfactual Thinking (CFT) • Mental construction • Rumination • Negative outcomes (e.g., failure) leads to more CFT • Unexpected outcomes lead to more CFT CFT “activation” Role of negative affect (greater the level of negative affect, more CFT) • Outcome Closeness (closer leads to more CFT) • Time (failing to renewing an insurance policy 3 days or 6 months before a serious illness) • Physical distance (pulling a muscle yards before the finish line) • Numerical proximity (being the 999th customer when # 1000 gets a prize)

Counterfactual Thinking (CFT) CFT Content Factors 1) Antecedent Normality: • Exceptions lead to more CFT • Going home a different route then get into an accident • Left work earlier than usual 2) Action vs. Inaction: (Some evidence that action leads to more CFT. Why? (Inactions are more normal, while actions are less so; Assumption that actions lead to outcomes whereas inaction leads to nothing) • Role of outcome valence (positive or negative outcomes) on the action-inaction issue • More CFT after actions that are successful, more CFT after inactions that lead to • failure • More CFT for action that leads to shame; more CFT for inaction that leads to guilt • Role of timeframe • More CFT after actions in the short term; greater CFT for inaction long term 3) Controllability: • More CFT when behavior was under one’s control • Being late after because one stopped for a beer vs. waiting • for a funeral to go by

Counterfactual Thinking (CFT) CFT Consequences --- • Contrast Effect (and closeness factor) • Affect (e.g., satisfaction due to upward vs. downward CFT) • Olympic athletes satisfaction level with receiving gold, solver, and bronze medals • Students getting an A- (1 point from an A) vs. those getting a B (1 point from a C) • Judgment • More monetary award for someone, after a plane crash, who died when ¼ mile • from safety vs. someone 75 miles away • CFT can affect judgments of causality (e.g., if only I had followed the study guide when studying I would have received a better grade = changing study habits can lead to better grades) • Relates to assignment of blame (e.g., unusual actions = more blame) • Can better prepare for the future (positively affects expectations, self-efficacy and intentions, especially upward CFT)

~ Inaction Inertia ~ Focus of past research on the effects/consequences of people’s actions (e.g., performing a given action makes further action more likely) • Foot-in the-Door Technique (initial commitment) • Low-Ball Technique (initial commitment) Does not acting on an attractive opportunity decrease the likelihood of acting when the opportunity presents itself again? Study 1; Purchasing a ski ticket before a deadline for $40 (or $80). Forget to buy ticket. Told you can still buy ticket for $90 (vs. the original $100). What do people say they would do? People in the large difference condition were less likely to act; they showed the inaction-inertia effect

Study 2: What was done and what was found?

Study 3: What was the purpose, what was done and what was found? Purpose: Examine the role of a real, initial opportunity and testing the contrast effect • The inaction-inertia effect is not due to perceptual contrast; it only occurs when someone has a legitimate chance to act • Can cognitive dissonance (devaluing opportunity) and/or self-perception (I really wasn’t interested) explain inaction inertia?

Study 4: What was the purpose, what was done and what was found? Purpose: To assess the possible role of perceived responsibility in producing the inaction-inertia effect Inaction-inertia occurred even when the person was not responsible for failing to acting (Dissonance and self-perception explanations not supported by the findings in Study 4) Responsibility (choice) is needed to produce dissonance; obvious cues given for not acting (self-perception theory)

Study 5 (horse betting study): What was the purpose, what was done and what was found? Purpose: Behavioral measure of the inaction-inertia effect Manipulated choice level to bet (low vs. high) and difference levels (large and small) Those in the large difference condition were less likely to initially bet on the target horse (Sir Beauford) and bet less money on the horse later on

Study 6 (frequent flyer): What was the purpose, what was done and what was found? Purpose: To investigate the possible effect of framing (loss, gain, neutral) on the inaction-inertia effect Gain (future focus): By signing up now, you can still gain 5,500 free miles Loss (past focus): By not signing up then, you lost 10,000 free miles Inaction inertia is likely due to the initial inaction being perceived as a loss; those in the gain condition did not exhibit the inaction-inertia effect

Counterfactual Thinking (CFT)