Counterfactual Thinking
From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki
Counterfactual thinking is the process of mentally changing some aspect of the past as a way of imagining what might have been (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007). Statements such as, “if only I had studied my notes more carefully, I would have passed the exam,” or, “if only I had not waited until the last minute to start working on the paper, I would have handed it in on time,” are examples of counterfactual thinking (Markman & Miller, 2006). Re-imagined versions of the past, are doomed to regret, despair, and an excruciating sense of loss (Roese, 1997). Counterfactual thoughts come to mind in response to those experiences where corrective thinking would be beneficial, focus on extreme or unusual antecedent of events, and produce negative affective consequences through a contrast effect mechanism (Roese, 1997). Besides negative affect, perceived closeness of the actual event to the alternative (how closely the goal was nearly achieved) also makes counterfactual thinking more likely (Quelhas, Power, Juhos, & Senos, 2008). The moral seems to be that if you are going to lose or not achieve a goal, it is best not to lose by a slim margin (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007). Studies argue that finding meaning involves understanding different aspects of the event and that rerunning events through one’s mind may contribute to the development of meaning (Leithy, Robbins & Brown, 2006).
Counterfactual thoughts have also been categorized with respect to the direction of comparison relative to the actual event (Leithy, Robbins & Brown, 2006). Upward counterfactuals serve a preparatory function in that identification of the cause of a negative outcome or some other factor that could have avoided the unfortunate situation and imagining how things could have been better, may prepare us for future similar situations (Leithy, Robbins & Brown, 2006). On the other hand, downward counterfactuals are considered to serve an affective function (the comparison between what happens in fact, and how things could have been worse, should help people to feel better), but this will not help us in future situations (Leithy, Robbins & Brown, 2006). Upward counterfactuals produce comparatively greater distress but, paradoxically, can lead to better adaptive outcomes than downward counterfactuals (Quelhas, Power, Juhos, & Senos, 2008). Moreover, upward counterfactuals are generated spontaneously far more frequently than downward counterfactuals (Roese, 1997). Counterfactuals are more likely to focus on controllable than uncontrollable event features, that controllable situations are more likely to elicit upward than downward and that upward counterfactuals enhance retrospective control perceptions (Markman & Miller, 2006). Counterfactual thoughts generally suggest successful future action and, consequently, contribute to enhanced expectancies of personal efficacy, personal control and confidence in general (Quelhas, Power, Juhos, & Senos, 2008).
Even though counterfactual thinking can benefit our future situations individuals who suffer from high levels of depression frequently believe that there is nothing they can do to change their outcomes (Quelhas, Power, Juhos, & Senos, 2008). In other words, depressed people frequently perceive the causes of negative events as features of their character or native abilities and thinking about things that you perceive cannot be changed have no cognitive or behavioral benefit (Leithy, Robbins & Brown, 2006). It is predicted in the present study of (Markman & Miller, 2006) that the counterfactuals of severely depressed individuals generate about a negative, potentially repeatable event will focus on uncontrollable and characterological features to a greater extent than will the counterfactuals of either those with non-depressive symptom levels or those with mild to moderately depressive symptom levels (Markman & Miller, 2006). However, in a recent study Markman and Miller found that individuals who endorse a relatively mild to moderate depressive symptom level gain no psychological benefit from focusing on how they could have prevented a negative outcome (Leithy, Robbins & Brown, 2006).
Example - Research
In the research study “Depression, Control and Counterfactual Thinking: Functional to Whom?” by Markman and Miller examined the relationship among these three variables. The study hypothesized that, for persons endorsing depressive symptoms, counterfactuals involving failed control opportunities serve as reminders of perceived negative self-characteristics, including impoverished efficacy, and should thus have the effect of depleting primary control perceptions. In other words individuals who suffer from high levels of depression do not benefit from counterfactual thinking.
The method of the research study had students from an introductory psychology class participate in a mass screening session, completed the Beck Depression Inventory-II, a self-report measure appropriate for detecting depressive symptoms among normal populations. Individuals were categorized with either non depressed, mild to moderately depressed or severely depressed symptoms ranges, as specified by Becks depth of depression cut-offs for the BDI. Those selected to participate were contacted 1.5 months later therefore, the participants were retested. Participants worked at a private computer station in order to work on the task. They were instructed to recall a potentially repeatable negative academic event in order to engender subsequently thinking about improving upon future academic events. After describing the negative academic event, participants were asked how negative, bad, and sad thinking about the event made them feel as well as the degree of control they felt they had had over the event 1 being “not at all” to 9 “extremely” scale. After experiencing negative outcomes, list as many examples of “if only” thoughts that come to mind. Following the counterfactual listing task, participants were prompted, “reflecting on it now,” to consider (according to the same 9-point scale) how negative, bad, and sad thinking about the event made them feel as well as the degree of control they felt they had had over the event. Finally participants indicated their present mood state on four affect adjectives, for example, afraid, discouraged, agitated, and sad according to the same 9-point scale. Analysis revealed no significant differences among the three depression categories in terms of how they initially evaluated the recalled events, but the three groups did evaluate the events differently after listing the counterfactuals. Severely depressed individuals evaluated the event more negatively than did the non-depressed and mild to moderate depressed but, overall participants actually evaluated the event more positively after generating the counterfactuals. MD’s generated fewer uncontrollable counterfactuals than did NDs and SVDs. SVDs generated a lower proportion of controllable counterfactuals than did MDs. NDs generated counterfactuals that were more reasonable than those of MDs and SVDs. The controllable counterfactuals generated by persons experiencing severe depression levels are less reasonable and feasible than are those generated by persons experiencing less severe depression levels, a thought process that should only serve to further increase self-blame and worsen depressive symptoms.
Example - Real-life
In the course of my research I have learned that counterfactual thinking can have beneficial outcomes in the future or no benefits at all depending on the person. Throughout my life I have had many instances where I have encountered counterfactual thinking. One particular example that I can remember is when I received a fail for the first time on a midterm. I was devastated and the only thoughts that were running through my head were “If only I had studied more”, “if I had just taken better notes” and “If only I could take back time I would do things different”. I had upward counterfactual, reasonable and unreasonable thoughts in my head. At some point I just wanted to give up, but I knew I could make things better. After this event I studied more and tried harder on the final because I did not want to feel like I had felt that day when I failed. Counterfactual thinking did help me in the near future, but not in the far future. I have experienced other times where I have received a bad grade and after going through these unwanted feelings like regret, failure, and sadness all over again is when I change my behavior to get a better grade. When I finally achieve to get a good grade I feel happy and encouraged to keep going. If I would have downward counterfactual thinking to make me feel better at that moment I do not think that my behavior would change. I think that the unpleasant feelings that come from upward counterfactual thinking are what help me do better in the future. What I have experienced in my life with counterfactual thinking is consistent with what I have learned from the research articles. Counterfactual thinking produces feelings like guilt, regret, sadness and despair, but it can help you (depending on the person) change your behavior in the future.
References
Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert, R.M. (2007). Social Cognition: How Think About the Social World. Social Psychology, (pp. 82-83). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Leithy, S.E., Robbins, I., & Brown, G.P. (2006). Counterfactual Thinking and Posttraumatic Stress Reactions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(3) 629-635.
Markman, K.D., & Miller, A.K. (2006). Depression, Control, and Counterfactual Thinking: Functional For Whom?. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(2) 210-227
Quelhas, A.C., Power, M.J., Juhos, C. & Senos, J. (2008). Counterfactual Thinking and Functional Differences in Depression. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 15, 352-365.
Roese, N.J. (1997). Counterfactual Thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1) 133-148.
◄ Back to Fall 2009 PSY 322 Assignment page
