The functional theory of counterfactual thinking asserts that multiple functions may be served by counterfactuals, and that the particular structural form or content of those counterfactuals will vary as a function of the activation of particular functions.
Do we really think counterfactual thoughts?
We think not. The central tenet of the functional theory of counterfactual thinking is that the counterfactual thoughts that spring effortlessly to mind on a daily basis are, for the most, reflections of goals. Accordingly, patterns of counterfactual thinking are clarified through the lens of theory pertaining to goal cognition.
Is counterfactual thinking good for behavior regulation?
The second generation of research, dating from the 1990s (and forming the bulk of this article), pointed to a functional perspective, in which counterfactual thinking serves a largely beneficial function of behavior regulation (Johnson & Sherman, 1990).
What is the functionalist approach to counterfactual thinking?
The functionalist idea of interplay between motivation and cognition was applied to counterfactual thinking and mental simulation by Johnson and Sherman (1990). Widely cited in subsequent papers on counterfactual thinking, this book chapter was more catalyst than detailed explication.
What is the difference between counterfactual thinking and collective action?
Hence, counterfactual thinking motivates individuals to making goal-oriented actions in order to attain their (failed) goal in the future. On the other hand, at a group level, counterfactual thinking can lead to collective action.
What is an example of counterfactual thinking?
Examples of upward counterfactual thinking are: “I wish I had taken that other job instead of this one 10 years ago – my life would be so much better if I had.” “I wish I would have gotten the part in that high school play, maybe I could have gotten into a theatre school and became an actor…”
What's the best description of counterfactual thinking?
Counterfactual thinking is a concept in psychology that involves the human tendency to create possible alternatives to life events that have already occurred; something that is contrary to what actually happened.
What is the concept of counterfactual?
A counterfactual is a mental simulation where you think about something that happened, and then imagine an alternate ending.
What is example of counterfactual?
A counterfactual explanation describes a causal situation in the form: “If X had not occurred, Y would not have occurred”. For example: “If I hadn't taken a sip of this hot coffee, I wouldn't have burned my tongue”. Event Y is that I burned my tongue; cause X is that I had a hot coffee.
Is counterfactual thinking a controlled process?
Controlled processes such as counterfactual thinking can have their benefits and drawbacks. First, discuss what is meant by the term "counterfactual thinking," then explain how this phenomenon can be beneficial and how it can be detrimental. Counterfactual thinking is the process of mentally redoing the past.
What is another word for counterfactual?
In this page you can discover 14 synonyms, antonyms, idiomatic expressions, and related words for counterfactual, like: hypothetical, wrong, contrary to fact, frequentist, a posteriori, true, counterfactuals, causality, false, specious and spurious.
What is counterfactual thinking this type of thinking?
Counterfactual thinking is thinking about a past that did not happen. This is often the case in “if only…” situations, where we wish something had or had not happened.
What type of reasoning is reasoning by counterfactuals?
Counterfactual reasoning is a hallmark of human thought, enabling the capacity to shift from perceiving the immediate environment to an alternative, imagined perspective.
What are counterfactual outcomes?
The outcome that an individual would have experienced if he had received a particular treatment or exposure value.
What is a benefit of counterfactual thinking quizlet?
helps restore meaning to people's lives. What is a benefit of counterfactual thinking? A benefit of counterfactual thinking is that it. these behaviors are in domains that have high contingent self-worth. A student changes her hairstyle and wardrobe.
What is counterfactual thinking this type of thinking quizlet?
Counterfactual thinking-- imagining what could have been-- occurs when we can easily picture an alternative outcome.
What is a counterfactual quizlet?
counterfactual thinking. thoughts about what might have been 'if only' with which we undo outcomes in our mind.
What is a benefit of counterfactual thinking quizlet?
helps restore meaning to people's lives. What is a benefit of counterfactual thinking? A benefit of counterfactual thinking is that it. these behaviors are in domains that have high contingent self-worth. A student changes her hairstyle and wardrobe.
What type of reasoning is reasoning by counterfactuals?
Counterfactual reasoning is a hallmark of human thought, enabling the capacity to shift from perceiving the immediate environment to an alternative, imagined perspective.
What are the determinants of counterfactual thinking?
A different set of determinants, such as norm violation and perceived control , has been shown to dictate the content of counterfactual thinking. These determinants have been reviewed elsewhere (Miller et al., 1990; Roese, 1997; Roese et al., 2005; Roese & Olson, 1995a); for present purposes we focus on the activation stage. To summarize, the first step in the regulatory loop is the activation of counterfactual thinking by problems or negative affect.
How does counterfactual judgment affect behavioral intention?
These experiments revealed, not simply that a counterfactual might energize intentions by producing a heightened or stronger belief in a future course of action, but more specifically that the completion of a counterfactual judgment brings to mind information that facilitates the construction of a behavioral intention.
How does contrast affect judgment?
Contrast effects occur when a judgment becomes more extreme via the juxtaposition of some anchor or standard (Ostrom & Upshaw, 1968; Sherif & Hovland, 1961; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). For example, a cup of coffee feels hotter, by contrast, if one has just been eating ice cream. In the same way, a factual outcome may appear worse if a more desirable alternative outcome is salient and better if a less desirable outcome is salient (e.g., Markman & McMullen, 2003; Medvec & Savitsky, 1997; Mellers, Schwartz, Ho, & Ritov, 1997; Roese, 1994). Consider further the instance in which an Olympic bronze medalist realizes that she barely made it onto the medal stand and thus might easily have won no medal at all (Medvec, Madey, & Gilovich, 1995). In this example, the affective contrast resulting from a downward comparison is relatively pleasant (i.e., there is a feeling of “relief” in recognizing that one might have, but did not, experience a negative outcome). Hence, counterfactual thoughts may fulfill a mood repair function, in that people may strategically generate downward counterfactuals so as to feel better (Sanna, Chang, & Meier, 2001; Sanna, Meier, & Turley-Ames, 1998; Sanna, Meier, & Wegner, 2001). Accordingly, the contrast effect mechanism has been connected to an affect regulatory function (Roese & Olson, 1997; Sanna, 2000).
Why do counterfactual conditionals occur?
Causal inference effects occur because a counterfactual conditional may emphasize, dramatize, or illuminate the causal link between an antecedent behavior and a desired outcome. To say that “If I had studied harder, I would have passed” is to underscore the causal impact of studying on grades. By virtue of their conditional structure and implicit reference to a parallel factual statement, counterfactual comparisons to actual sequences of events serve to isolate one particular causal antecedent in terms of its sufficiency to produce a divergent outcome.
How does counterfactual thinking work?
The process begins with a problem, mishap, or other negative experience that falls below a reference value for success or satisfactory performance. Recognition of a problem then activates counterfactual thinking (step 1 in Figure 1). This counterfactual conditional is an inference that links an antecedent to a consequent; in everyday cognition, most typically the antecedent is an action and the consequent is a goal (e.g., “If only I had studied harder, I would have passed”). Counterfactual thoughts themselves have as an inherent property such causal implications, and these directly fuel the activation of corresponding behavioral intentions (“I intend to study harder next time” step 2 in Figure 1), which in turn unleash corresponding corrective behavior (the student indeed studies harder next time; step 3 in Figure 1). To the extent that such behavior alleviates the original problem, this mechanism is effective in regulating behavior in terms of goal pursuit.
Why do we have counterfactual thoughts?
Why do we have counterfactual thoughts? Where do they come from, and what purpose (if any) do they serve? The present article summarizes what is currently known about the behavior regulatory function of counterfactual thinking. According to this theoretical perspective, the primary function of counterfactual thinking centers on management and coordination of ongoing behavior. Thinking about what might have been influences performance and facilitates improvement, and it does so by way of several distinct mechanisms. Counterfactual thoughts are deeply connected to goals and are a component of regulatory mechanisms that keep behavior on track, particularly within social interactions (Epstude & Roese, in press; Johnson & Sherman, 1990; Markman & McMullen, 2003; Roese, 1997, 2001; Roese & Olson, 1997; Roese, Sanna, & Galinsky, 2005; Segura & Morris, 2005). Later in this article, we review recent discoveries in cognitive neuroscience, which are strikingly compatible with this functional framework.
What is content specific pathway?
The content-specific pathway involves the transfer of information (regarding action that might have been taken) from the counterfactual inference to behavioral intentions, which in turn influence performance of corresponding behavior. The content-specific pathway is what appears in Figure 1. This pathway is content specific in the sense that the particular information contained in the counterfactual (i.e., the lesson learned, or the belief in the causal effectiveness of a particular action) is funneled directly into a behavioral intention and, as a consequence, behavior. In the content-neutral pathway, on the other hand, it is the activation of a more general style of information processing, or motivation to expend greater effort, that results in behavior change (see Figure 2). Contrast effects may fuel behavior change via this pathway, but in addition, so too might assimilation effects, mind-sets, or motivations, all of which operate in a manner that is independent of the specific information contained in the original counterfactual. Below, we review evidence for both pathways. Further, we argue that these pathways may operate either in isolation or interactively. We turn first to the content-specific pathway.
What is the causal cognition of a person?
A prominent finding in causal cognition research is people’s tendency to attribute increased causality to atypical actions. If two agents jointly cause an outcome (conjunctive causation), but differ in how frequently they have performed the causal action before, people judge the atypically acting agent to have caused the outcome to a greater extent. In this paper, we argue that it is the epistemic state of an abnormally acting agent, rather than the abnormality of their action, that is driving people's causal judgments. Given the predictability of the normally acting agent's behaviour, the abnormal agent is in a better position to foresee the consequences of their action. We put this hypothesis to test in four experiments. In Experiment 1, we show that people judge the atypical agent as more causal than the normally acting agent, but also judge the atypical agent to have an epistemic advantage. In Experiment 2, we find that people do not judge a causal difference if no epistemic advantage for the abnormal agent arises. In Experiment 3, we replicate these findings in a scenario in which the abnormal agent's epistemic advantage generalises to a novel context. In Experiment 4, we extend these findings to mental states more broadly construed and develop a Bayesian network model that predicts the degree of outcome-oriented mental states based on action normality and epistemic states. We find that people infer mental states like desire and intention to a greater extent from abnormal behaviour when this behaviour is accompanied by an epistemic advantage. We discuss these results in light of current theories and research on people's preference for abnormal causes.
What is perceived isolation?
Loneliness—perceived social isolation—is defined as a discrepancy between existing social relationships and desired quality of relationships. Whereas most research has focused on existing relationships, we consider the standards against which people compare them. Participants who made downward social or temporal comparisons that depicted their contact with others as better (compared to other people’s contact or compared to the past) reported less loneliness than participants who made upward comparisons that depicted their contact with others as worse (Study 1–3). Extending these causal results, in a survey of British adults, upward social comparisons predicted current loneliness, even when controlling for loneliness at a previous point in time (Study 4). Finally, content analyses of interviews with American adults who lived alone showed that social and temporal comparisons about contact with others were both prevalent and linked to expressed loneliness (Study 5). These findings contribute to understanding the social cognition of loneliness, extend the effects of comparisons about social connection to the important public health problem of loneliness, and provide a novel tool for acutely manipulating loneliness.
What is the purpose of the thesis that counterpossibles are false?
The aim of this paper is to argue in favor of the view that some counterpossibles are false. This is done indirectly by showing that accepting the opposite view, i.e., one that ascribes truth to each and every counterpossible, results in the claim that every necessarily false theory has exactly the same consequences. Accordingly, it is shown that taking every counterpossible to be true not only undermines the value of debates over various alternative theories and their consequences, but also puts into question the very possibility of such debates. In order to explicate this thesis, the close bond between counterpossibles and the so-called story prefix (i.e., the sentential operator 'According to fiction F, P') is explored. A number of possible responses to this criticism are also presented, and it is argued that none of them address the main problem.
How does separation affect family?
Parental separation affects family forms and creates challenges around managing co-parenting relationships. The literature has identified a change in how western families are viewed, moving away from traditional identifiers to a role-based and social practices construct which includes the growing number of non-traditional families. Despite this shift, family therapy continues to draw from a framework of family as a nuclear entity, leading to challenges in working successfully with troubled families, resulting in disengagement and unsatisfactory clinical outcomes. Therefore, this study seeks to better understand how re-formed family configurations function and co-parent to inform professional practice. The research takes the form of a discourse analysis that uses semi-structured interviews with separated parents (3 men and 4 women) who have experienced either high or low conflict separations, to understand how this conflict influences co-parenting. However, tensions were introduced by bringing together insights from a range of academic disciplines to develop a broader understanding of family and its clinical application based on the perspective and experiences of a family therapist. Findings suggest separations are painful experiences that people make sense of by constructing moralistic narratives of what happened and who was responsible. Individuals then typically engage in a process of rebuilding their lives and incorporating co-parenting relationships into new family forms that seems compelled and constrained by conflict and a discursive field of heteronormative social norms around public understandings of family. A clinical model is put forward to represent this process. Professional implications of the findings are discussed and it is suggested that developing an effective treatment plan with separated parents requires explicit understanding of their perspectives of family and how separation events continually constitute family troubles and their responses. It is recommended that the proposed model can be used to guide ex-partners towards a co-parenting partnership using a rebranded therapeutic intervention that addresses problematic assumptions around the clinical term of ‘the family’.
What is counterfactual thinking?
Counterfactuals are thoughts about alternatives to past events, that is, thoughts of what might have been. This article provides an updated account of the functional theory of counterfactual thinking, suggesting that such thoughts are best explained in terms of their role in behavior regulation and performance improvement. The article reviews a wide range of cognitive experiments indicating that counterfactual thoughts may influence behavior by either of two routes: a content-specific pathway (which involves specific informational effects on behavioral intentions, which then influence behavior) and a content-neutral pathway (which involves indirect effects via affect, mind-sets, or motivation). The functional theory is particularly useful in organizing recent findings regarding counterfactual thinking and mental health. The article concludes by considering the connections to other theoretical conceptions, especially recent advances in goal cognition.
What is the functional theory of counterfactual thinking?
The functional theory of counterfactual thinking centers on the connection of episodic counterfactuals to goal-directed cognition and action. Simply put, episodic counterfactual thoughts are disciplined, not erratic flights of fancy. These types of counterfactual thoughts are constrained by reality and typically involve only minimal changes to actual events to suppose alternatives that are pragmatic and plausible ( Seelau, Seelau, Wells, & Windschitl, 1995 ). Episodic counterfactuals usually embody goals and specify means by which goals may be achieved. They relate directly to planning and action implementation, which may in turn guide behavior. In essence, episodic counterfactuals are best understood in terms of their connection to behavior regulation. True, counterfactual thoughts also influence emotion, suggesting a linkage also to affect regulation. Nevertheless, the functional theory positions affect regulation as secondary to behavior regulation. The functional theory of counterfactual thinking embraces the following postulates, covered in Section 2. We state the theoretical ideas here in their purest essence, and then return to the question of their empirical support in Section 3.
What is a counterfactual thought?
Counterfactual thoughts that occur spontaneously on a daily basis center mainly on goals. They focus on what one personally could have done to have achieved the goal, or to have bypassed some obstacle so as to achieve a more desirable outcome. As such, most spontaneous counterfactuals are episodic (as opposed to focused on general world knowledge), personal (as opposed to focused on others), and upward (as opposed to downward).
What is the function of counterfactuals?
The functional theory of counterfactual thinking asserts that multiple functions may be served by counterfactuals, and that the particular structural form or content of those counterfactuals will vary as a function of the activation of particular functions. A preparative function occupies the bulk of our attention in this chapter, yet previous writings articulated additional functions, chief among them an affective function. In other words, counterfactuals can sometimes take a downward form, in which a worse alternative is considered, which in turn (by way of a contrast effect) evokes more positive emotions ( Roese, 1997, Roese, 1999, Roese and Olson, 1995a, Roese and Olson, 1995b, Roese and Olson, 1997; see also Allen, Greenlees, & Jones, 2014 ). Accordingly, under some circumstances, people may generate downward counterfactuals strategically in order to make themselves feel better. The key structural differentiator between a preparative and affective function is direction of comparison: upward counterfactuals are more useful for preparation, whereas downward counterfactuals are more useful for affect repair. In measures of spontaneous counterfactual thinking, downward counterfactuals occur rarely, thus lending weight to the assertion that counterfactuals embrace this affective function relatively rarely, i.e., under certain unusual circumstances, such as when a more tragic event very nearly happened ( McMullen & Markman, 2000 ), or when affective self-enhancement motives are heightened or chronically activated ( Rim and Summerville, 2014, White and Lehman, 2005 ).
How do counterfactuals relate to goals?
Episodic counterfactuals connect to goals and performance, as specified by the functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Key evidence on the appearance of this effect came from O’Connor, McCormack, Beck, and Feeney (2015), who used a paradigm in which children chose between two boxes containing valued tokens or stickers. The researchers varied whether children chose a box themselves vs had a box randomly assigned to them. The obtained box contained a less valued prize, whereas the unobtained prize was always of much greater value. Children were asked about their affective response before and after learning about the content of the nonchosen box. On the next day, children participated in the same task again and had the option to adjust their decision from the first day. Results indicate that being actively involved in making the suboptimal decision evoked upward, self-focused counterfactuals (i.e., regret) starting at around age 6. Pivotally, these same children (starting at around age 6) took the opportunity to adjust their behavior on the second day, specifically as a result of experiencing regret. Thus, this experiment indicated counterfactual-fueled performance improvement, although in this circumstance we cannot be sure whether the effect was content-specific or content-neutral (or both; see also O’Connor, McCormack, & Feeney, 2014 ). That regret is experienced at around age 6 is also supported by evidence from risky decision tasks ( McCormack, O’Connor, Beck, & Feeney, 2016 ).
What is the difference between upward and downward counterfactuals?
In terms of direction, there is a general advantage for upward counterfactuals over downward counterfactuals for performance improvement, in that, by definition, an upward counterfactual specifies an improvement to the status quo, whereas a downward counterfactual specifies a deterioration to the status quo and thus points to ways to preserve rather than improve upon the status quo . Hence, all else being equal, the functional theory predicts that among spontaneous (vs prompted) counterfactual thoughts, the upward form will predominate over the downward form. In terms of structure, there is similarly a general advantage for performance improvement achieved by additive over subtractive counterfactuals, in that additive counterfactuals specify novel, creative solutions to build upon the status quo. Therefore, all else being equal, the functional theory predicts that among spontaneous (vs prompted) counterfactual thoughts, the additive form will predominate over the subtractive form ( Roese & Olson, 1993b ). Finally, in terms of social focus, it stands to reason that personal benefit derives primarily from modification to one's own behaviors, hence there is an advantage for the self-focused over the other-focused form that translates into the prediction that the former form will predominate over the latter form. Summarizing, the typical form of a spontaneous counterfactual thought is upward, additive, and self-focused.
What is episodic counterfactual content?
At the most general level, episodic counterfactual content is about goals. When we think “if only,” we are usually thinking about a way to get to an unrealized desire. In this section, the focus is on episodic counterfactual thinking, which we will shorten simply to counterfactuals. Regardless of whether counterfactuals specify common vs unusual ways to achieve a goal, they nevertheless cohere around goals. Therefore, it is essential to examine the goal central to a situation when examining the functional qualities of a counterfactual thought. Counterfactuals connect to behavior regulation in the form of a negative feedback loop comprising the current goal state of the individual, an ideal goal state, and actions that serve to reduce the discrepancy between the current and ideal state ( Carver & Scheier, 1996 ). The greater the discrepancy, the greater the impetus to activity aimed at reducing the discrepancy.
How do counterfactuals influence behavior?
Generally speaking, counterfactuals influence behavior in a beneficial way in terms of performance improvement. However, this general statement carries several qualifications, the most important of which are that performance benefits will be observed to a greater extent when (a) the causal inference underlying the counterfactual is accurate and effective and (b) there is opportunity for implementing the fruit of the causal inference. Thus, the functional theory does not predict uniform performance improvement as a consequence of any and all counterfactual thinking; rather, there are particular conditions and forms of counterfactual thinking that yield differing degrees of impact on performance.
Access Options
You can be signed in via any or all of the methods shown below at the same time.
Abstract
Counterfactuals are thoughts about alternatives to past events, that is, thoughts of what might have been. This article provides an updated account of the functional theory of counterfactual thinking, suggesting that such thoughts are best explained in terms of their role in behavior regulation and performance improvement.
What is the difference between additive and subtractive counterfactual?
A counterfactual statement may involve the action or inaction of an event that originally took place. An additive statement involves engaging in an event that did not originally occur (e.g., I should have taken medicine) whereas a subtractive statement involves removing an event that took place (e.g., I should have never started drinking ). Additive counterfactuals are more frequent than subtractive counterfactuals.
How does counterfactual thinking affect collective action?
On the other hand, at a group level, counterfactual thinking can lead to collective action. According to Milesi and Catellani (2011), political activists exhibit group commitment and are more likely to re-engage in collective action following a collective defeat and show when they are engage in counterfactual thinking. Unlike the cognitive processes involved at individual level, abstract counterfactuals lead to an increase in group identification, which is positively correlated with collective action intention. The increase in group identification impacts on people's affect. Abstract counterfactuals also lead to an increase in group efficacy. Increase in group efficacy translates to belief that the group has the ability to change outcomes in situations. This in turn motivates group members to make group-based actions to attain their goal in the future.
How does perceived power affect counterfactual thinking?
Recent research by Scholl and Sassenberg (2014) looked to determine how perceived power in the situation can affect the counterfactual thought and process associated to understanding future directions and outlooks. The research examined how manipulating the perceived power of the individual in the given circumstance can lead to different thoughts and reflections, noting that "demonstrated that being powerless (vs. powerful) diminished self-focused counterfactual thinking by lowering sensed personal control". These results may show a relationship between how the self perceives events and determines the best course of action for future behavior.
What is the activation portion of counterfactual thinking?
First, there is the activation portion. This activation is whether we allow the counterfactual thought to seep into our conscious thought. The second portion involves content. This content portion creates the end scenario for the antecedent.
What are the two types of counterfactual thoughts?
There are two types of counterfactual thoughts, downward and upward. Downward counterfactuals are thoughts about how the situation could have been worse; and people tend to have a more positive view of the actual outcome. Upward counterfactuals are thoughts about how the situation could have been better.
Why do bronze medalists think they are more satisfied with the outcome than silver medalists?
In the case of Olympic Medalists, counterfactual thinking explains why bronze medalists are often more satisfied with the outcome than silver medalists. The counterfactual thoughts for silver medalists tend to focus on how close they are to the gold medal, up ward counterfactually thinking about the event, whereas bronze medalists tend to counterfactual think about how they could have not received a medal at all , displaying downward counterfactual thinking.
Why do we use counterfactual theory?
Risk aversion. Main article: Risk aversion (psychology) Another reason we continue to use counterfactual theory is to avoid situations that may be unpleasant to us, which is part of our approach and avoidance behavior. Often, people make a conscious effort to avoid situations that may make them feel unpleasant.
Abstract
Thinking about what might have been—counterfactual thinking—is a common feature of the mental landscape. Key questions about counterfactual thinking center on why and how they occur and what downstream cognitive and behavioral outcomes they engender.
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The Functional Theory of Counterfactual Thinking: New Evidence, New Challenges, New Insights'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.