Upward Counterfactuals Research Articles

Gaining Control through Counterfactual Thinking

The control-gaining influence of counterfactual thought was examined in a month-long study of real-life exam performances. Participants were contacted immediately after receiving a test grade, the day before their next test, and right after receiving their second grade. Previous research has proposed that upward counterfactuals lead to improved future performance. The present study aimed to identify mediators of this process. Participants who generated more upward counterfactuals were predicted to perceive enhanced control over the environment and to engage in more action on their environment. Subsequent test performance should thus improve. Results showed that the tendency to generate upward counterfactuals was correlated with later changes in circumstances, which in turn, was associated with higher perceptions of control; control perceptions were correlated with better subsequent grades. Implications of results for social cognition, action, and control processes are discussed.

Mood, self-esteem, and simulated alternatives: thought-provoking affective influences on counterfactual direction.

Four studies indicated that moods and self-esteem can influence counterfactual thoughts. This was shown for counterfactuals generated for hypothetical situations (Study 1), for recalled life events (Study 2), and for agreement with counterfactual statements after laboratory tasks (Studies 3 and 4). High self-esteem (HSE) and low self-esteem (LSE) persons generated (Studies 1 and 2) or agreed to (Studies 3 and 4) more downward (worse than actuality) than upward (better than actuality) counterfactuals when in good moods, but they diverged in reactions to bad moods: HSE persons thought more about downward counterfactuals, whereas LSE persons thought more about upward counterfactuals. HSE persons felt better after generating downward counterfactuals (Study 2) and took longer to agree to analogous statements (Studies 3 and 4) in bad moods, suggesting attempts at mood repair.

Mood, Self-Esteem, and Counterfactuals: Externally Attributed Moods Limit Self-Enhancement Strategies

Two studies demonstrated that moods can influence counterfactual direction, and that self-esteem and external mood attributions can moderate such influences. This was shown for hypothetical situations (Study 1) and for performances after a laboratory task (Study 2). Although both high self-esteem (HSE) and low self-esteem (LSE) persons generated more downward than upward counterfactuals when in positive moods (Study 1), they diverged in their reactions to negative moods (Studies 1 & 2): HSE persons generated more downward than upward counterfactuals, whereas LSE persons generated more upward than downward counterfactuals. HSE persons also felt better after generating downward counterfactuals when in negative moods (Study 2), suggesting a mood repair strategy. Importantly, in both studies external attributions for moods moderated this pattern. Mood repair strategies were not used when moods were externally attributed, implicating the self and the informational value of moods in this process.

Self-Efficacy and Counterfactual Thinking: Up a Creek with and without a Paddle

Two studies examined self-efficacy as a moderator of the consequences of upward and downward counterfactual thinking. In both studies, self-efficacy was manipulated by false feedback after performing an anagram task. In Study 1, low-self-efficacy participants felt worse than high-self-efficacy participants when generating upward counterfactuals, but there were no differences when generating downward counterfactuals if the task was repeatable. When there was no repeat, reactions to counterfactual direction did not differ by self-efficacy level. Study 2 further clarified the results of the first study by including self-efficacy and counterfactual controls. Differences in affect and preparation again occurred primarily when generating upward counterfactuals. Relationships between antecedents and consequences of self-efficacy and counterfactual thinking are discussed.

Affective Contrast and Assimilation in Counterfactual Thinking

Previous work has shown that counterfactual thinking, or the imagination of alternatives to reality, yields an affective contrast effect: Thinking about how things could have been better (an upward counterfactual) brings about negative affect, and thinking about how things could have been worse (a downward counterfactual) brings about positive affect. The present research documents affective assimilation: under certain conditions, upward counterfactuals lead to positive affect and downward counterfactuals lead to negative affect. In two studies, participants recalled recent autobiographical events, and were instructed to make specific types of counterfactuals about those events. Results from two studies showed that a focus on a vividly imagined counterfactual simulation (termed an experiential mode) yields affective assimilation, and an evaluative focus on the factual event (termed an evaluative mode) yields affective contrast.

The Influence of Chronic Control Concerns on Counterfactual Thought

The present study investigated relationships between counterfactual thinking, control motivation, and depression. Mildly depressed and nondepressed participants described negative life events that might happen again (repeatable event condition) or probably will not happen again (nonrepeatable event condition) and then made upward counterfactuals about these events. Compared to nondepressed participants, depressed participants made more counterfactuals about controllable than uncontrollable aspects of the events they described, and this effect was mediated by general control loss perceptions in the repeatable event condition. Making more counterfactuals about controllable than uncontrollable aspects also enhanced retrospective control perceptions, but only in the repeatable event condition. Functional and dysfunctional implications of making counterfactuals about controllable features of events are discussed.

Outcome Controllability and Counterfactual Thinking

The impact of outcome controllability on the direction of counterfactual thoughts (reconstructions of past outcomes based on "might have been"alternatives) was examined in two laboratory experiments. Counterfactual direction reflects the distinction between upward counterfactuals (focusing on how things could have been better) and downward counterfactuals (focusing on how things could have been worse). Previous research has shown that upward counterfactuals are more frequent after failure, even though consideration of downward counterfactuals is affectively self-enhancing. Two studies showed that outcome controllability affects counterfactual direction: Upward counterfactuals were more frequent following controllable outcomes, whereas downward counterfactuals were more frequent following uncontrollable outcomes. Paralleling past research, upward counterfactuals were more frequent after failure, whereas downward counterfactuals were more frequent after success. These findings are consistent with an emerging functional theory of counterfactual thinking.

The functional basis of counterfactual thinking.

Counterfactual thoughts (“might-have-been” reconstructions of past outcomes) may serve an affective function (feeling better) and a preparative function (future improvement). Three studies showed that counterfactuals varying in their direction and structure may differentially serve these 2 functions. Direction influenced affect such that downward (vs. upward) counterfactuals caused more positive affect. Direction influenced intentions such that upward (vs. downward) counterfactuals heightened intentions to perform success-facilitating behaviors. Both direction and structure influenced performance on an anagram task such that upward and additive (vs. downward and subtractive) counterfactuals engendered greater improvement. These findings suggest that people can strategically use downward counterfactuals to make themselves feel better and upward and additive counterfactuals to improve performance.

The Mental Simulation of Better and Worse Possible Worlds

Counterfactual thinking involves the imagination of non-factual alternatives to reality. We investigated the spontaneous generation of both upward counterfactuals, which improve on reality, and downward counterfactuals, which worsen reality. All subjects gained $5 playing a computer-simulated blackjack game. However, this outcome was framed to be perceived as either a win, a neutral event, or a loss. "Loss" frames produced more upward and fewer downward counterfactuals than did either "win" or "neutral" frames, but the overall prevalence of counterfactual thinking did not vary with outcome valence. In addition, subjects who expected to play the game again made more upward counterfactuals and were less satisfied with the outcome than were subjects who did not expect to play again. However, once subjects saw the cards from which they could have selected had they "hit" again (two winning cards and two losing cards), all subjects generated primarily upward counterfactuals and showed a corresponding decrease in satisfaction. These results implicate both cognitive and motivational factors in the generation of counterfactuals and tell us something about the functional value of counterfactual thinking: downward counterfactuals provide comfort; upward counterfactuals prepare one for the future.