Counterfactual thinking is a concept in psychology involving the human tendency to create alternative possibilities for life events that have occurred; something that goes against what really happened. Counterfactual thinking is, as stated: "against facts". These thoughts consist of "What if?" and "If I just..." it happens when thinking of how things can change differently. Counterfactual thoughts include things that - in the present - can never happen in reality because they are solely related to events that have occurred in the past.
Video Counterfactual thinking
Overview
The term "counterfactual" is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary that is contrary to fact. A counterfactual mind occurs when a person modifies an event before factual and then assesses the consequences of the change. One can imagine how the results could change differently, if the predecessor that caused the event was different. For example, one can reflect on how a car accident can change by imagining how several factors may differ, for example, If only I did not speed up... . These alternatives can be better or worse than the real situation, and in turn give better or worse results, If only I were not speeding, my car would not be destroyed or If I not wearing a seat belt, I will be killed .
Counterfactual thoughts have been shown to produce negative emotions, but they can also produce functional or beneficial effects. Ideas that create more negative results are down counterfactual and thoughts that create more positive results are considered up counterfactual. These counterfactual thoughts, or thoughts of what can happen, can affect people's emotions, such as causing them to experience remorse, guilt, relief, or satisfaction. They can also influence how they view social situations, such as who is to blame and responsibility.
Maps Counterfactual thinking
History
The origins of counterfactual thinking have philosophical roots and can be traced back to early philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato who contemplate the epistemological status of subjunctive presuppositions and outcomes that are absent but worthy. In the seventeenth century, the German philosopher, Leibniz, argued that there may be an infinite number of alternative worlds, provided they do not conflict with the laws of logic. The famous philosopher Nicholas Rescher (also others) has written about the mutual relationship between logical counter-reasoning and capital logic. The relationship between counterfactual reasoning based on capital logic can also be utilized in Victorian literature or Study, painting and poetry. Ruth MJ Byrne in The Rational Imagination (2005) suggests that the mental representations and cognitive processes underlying alternative imaginations of reality resemble those that underlie rational thought, including the reason of the counterfactual conditionals.
More recently, counterfactual thinking has attracted interest from a psychological perspective. Cognitive scientists have examined the mental representations and cognitive processes that underlie counterfactual creation. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (1982) pioneered the study of counterfactual thinking, suggesting that people tend to think 'if only' more often about extraordinary events than about normal events. Many of the related trends have since been examined, for example, whether the event is an action or inaction, whether it can be controlled, its place in the order of a temporal event, or its causal relationship with another event. Social psychologists have studied cognitive and counterfactual functions in a larger social context.
Initial research on counterfactual thinking takes the perspective that these types of thinking exhibit poor coping skills, errors or psychological biases, and are generally dysfunctional in nature. As the research developed, a new wave of early insights in the 1990s began to take a functional perspective, believing that counterfactual thinking serves as a very useful behavioral regulator. Despite negative and biased influences, overall positive benefits for human behavior.
Activation
There are two parts of counterfactual thinking. First, there's an activation section. This activation is whether we allow the counterfactual thinking to seep into our conscious mind. The second part involves content. This section of content creates the final scenario for its predecessor.
This part of activation leads to the mystery of why we allow ourselves to think of alternatives that may be useful or harmful to us. It is believed that people tend to think of counterfactual ideas when there are exceptional circumstances leading to an event, and thus can be avoided from the start. We also tend to create counterfactual ideas when we feel guilty about a situation and want to use more control. For example, in a study by Davis et al., Parents who suffered infant mortality were more likely to think counterpractually 15 months later if they felt guilty about the incident or if there were strange circumstances surrounding death. In the case of natural causes death, parents tend to think contextually at a lower level over time.
Another factor that determines how much we use counterfactual thinking is how close we are to alternative results. This is especially true when there are negative results that are close to to positive results. For example, in a study by Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran, subjects were more likely to think of counterfactuals thinking about alternative situations for targets if their homes were burned three days after he forgot to renew his insurance than six months after he forgot to renew his insurance. Therefore, the idea that the end result almost happens plays a role in the reason we emphasize that outcome.
Functional base
One may wonder why we continue to think in a counterfactual way if these thoughts tend to make us feel guilty or negative about a result. One functional reason for this is correcting errors and avoiding making them again in the future. If one can consider other results based on different paths, they can take the path in the future and avoid undesirable results. It is clear that the past can not be changed, however, the possibility that a similar situation may occur in the future, and thus we take our counterfactual thinking as a learning experience. For example, if someone has a bad interview and thinks about how it might be more successful if they respond in a more confident manner, they are more likely to respond more confidently in the next interview.
Risk aversion
Another reason we continue to use counterfactual theory is to avoid situations that may be unpleasant to us, which are part of our avoidance approach and behavior. Often, people make a conscious effort to avoid situations that can make them feel unpleasant. However, apart from our best efforts, we sometimes find ourselves in this unpleasant situation. In this situation, we continue to use counterfactual thinking to think of ways that events can be avoided and in turn to learn to avoid those situations again in the future. For example, if someone finds the hospital as an uncomfortable place, but finds themselves in one for cutting their fingers while washing dishes, they may think of ways they can avoid going to the hospital by treating the wound themselves or doing a dish be careful.
Behavior intent
We continue to use counterfactual thinking to change our future behavior in a more positive way, or behavioral intentions . This can involve making a change in our behavior as soon as a negative event occurs. By actively performing behavioral changes, we completely avoid further problems in the future. For example, forget about Mother's Day, and immediately write a date on the calendar for the next year, as it definitely avoids trouble.
Targeted activity
In the same sense as behavioral intentions, people tend to use counterfactual thinking in goal-directed activities. Previous studies have shown that counterfactual serves a preparatory function at the individual and group level. When people fail to achieve their goals, counterfactual thinking will be activated (e.g., Learn more after a disappointing value;). As they engage in counter-counterfactual thoughts, one can imagine alternatives with better positive outcomes. The results look worse when compared to positive alternative results. This awareness motivates them to take positive action to achieve their goals in the future.
Markman, Gavanski, Sherman, and McMullen (1993) identify repeating an event as an important factor in determining what function to use. For recurring events (e.g. Games Games) there is an increased motivation to imagine alternative antecedents to prepare for better future outcomes. However, for a one-time event, opportunities to improve future performance do not exist, so it's more likely that the person will try to reduce the disappointment by imagining how things could get worse. The direction of the counterfactual statement also indicates which functions can be used. Counterfactual upwards has a larger preparative function and focuses on future improvements, while counterfactual down is used as a coping mechanism in affective function. In addition, counterfactual additives have shown greater potential to induce behavioral intent of improving performance. Therefore, counterfactual thinking motivates individuals to make goal-oriented actions to reach their future (failing) goals.
Collective action
On the other hand, at the group level, counterfactual thinking can lead to collective action. According to Milesi and Catellani (2011), political activists demonstrate group commitment and are more likely to re-engage in collective action after collective defeats and show when they engage in counterfactual thinking. Unlike the cognitive processes involved at the individual level, abstract counterfactuals lead to increased group identification, which is positively correlated with the intent of collective action. Increased group identification impacts people's influence. Counterfactual abstract also leads to increased group efficacy. Improved group efficacy translates into confidence that the group has the ability to change the outcome in situations. This in turn motivates group members to make group-based actions to achieve their goals in the future.
Benefits and consequences
When thinking of counterfactual thinking down , or ways that the situation can get worse, people tend to feel relieved. For example, if after a car accident, someone thinks, "At least I'm not speeding, then my car will be totally gone." It is possible to consider the positives of the situation, rather than negative ones. In the case of up counterfactual thinking, people tend to feel more negative influences (eg, regret, disappointment) about the situation. When thinking in this way, people focus on ways in which situations can become more positive: for example, "If I just learned more, then I would not fail my test".
Latest research
Like many cognitive processes in the brain, current and future research seeks to gain a better insight into the function and outcome of how we think. Research for counterfactual thinking has recently investigated effects and how they can alter or contribute to counterfactual thinking. One study by Rim and Summerville (2014) investigates the distance of the event in terms of time and how long this time can affect the process by which counterfactual thinking can occur. Their results show that "people generate more downward counterfactuals about past events versus much earlier, while they tend to generate more counterfactuals about past events versus much earlier", which are consistent in their repetition for social distance too. They also examined mechanisms that might manipulate social distance and its effects on responding to negative events either in self-improvement or self-motivation.
A recent study by Scholl and Sassenberg (2014) sees to determine how perceived power in situations can influence related thoughts and related processes to understand future direction and outlook. This study examined how manipulating the perceived power of an individual in certain circumstances can lead to different thoughts and reflections, noting that "showing that being powerless (vs. strong) reduces self-focused counterfactual thinking by lowering perceived personal control." These results can show the relationship between how the self perceives the event and determines the best course of action for future behavior.
Type
Up and down
Upward counterfactual thinking focuses on how things can get better. Often, people think about what they can do differently. For example, "If I start studying three days ago, instead of last night, I can do better on my tests." Because people often think about what they can do differently, it is not uncommon for people to feel sorry for their counterfactual thinking up.
Downward counterfactual thinking focuses on how things can get worse. In this scenario, one can make himself feel better about the outcome because they realize that the situation is not the worst. For example, "I'm lucky I got 'C' for it; I did not start studying until last night."
Additive/subtractive
Counterfactual statements may involve the action or inaction of an event that originally occurred. The additive statement involves engaging in an event that did not initially occur (eg, I should take medication ) when a subtractive statement involves deleting an event (eg, I should never start drinking ). Counterfactual additives more often than substractive counterfactuals.
Additive and upward counterfactual thinking focuses on "what else can I do to do it well?". Counterfactual and counterfactual thinking focuses on "what should I not do so I can do it well?". Instead, the additive and the downward scenario will be, "If I go drink last night too, I will do worse", while the subtractive scenario and down will be, "if I did not start studying two days ago, I would do much worse ".
Own vs. more
This difference only refers to whether the counterfactual is about self-action (eg, I should slow down ) or the actions of others (eg, Other drivers should slow down ). Counterfactual self is more common than counterfactual of others who are focused.
The constitutional-level theory explains that self-counterfactual is more common because events are psychologically closer than events in which others are involved.
Theory
Norm Theory
Kahneman and Miller (1986) proposed the theory of norms as the theoretical foundation to describe the reasons for counterfactual thinking. Normal theory suggests that the ease of imagining different results determines the counterfactual alternatives being made. Norms involve pairwise comparisons between cognitive standards and experience results. A difference generates an affective response that is influenced by the magnitude and direction of the difference. For example, if a server generates twenty dollars more than a standard night, a positive effect will be generated. If a student gets a lower grade than a typical one, a negative effect will be generated. Generally, the upward counterfactual tends to produce a negative mood, while the counterfactual downward creates a positive atmosphere.
Kahneman and Miller (1986) also introduced the concept of mutability to illustrate the ease or difficulty of cognitively altering the results given. Unchangeable results (ie, gravity) are difficult to modify cognitively whereas the results that can change (ie, speed) are easier to modify cognitively. Most of the events lie somewhere in the middle of this extreme. The more antecedent an antecedent results, the greater the availability of counterfactual thoughts.
Wells and Gavanski (1989) studied counterfactual thinking in terms of change and causality. Events or introductions are considered causal if mutating events will result in the destruction of results. Some events are more changeable than others. Extraordinary events (ie, taking unusual routes and then accidents) are more likely to change from ordinary events (ie, taking regular and accidental routes). However, these changes can only be related to exceptional cases (ie, car accidents). Controlled events (ie, deliberate decisions) are usually more likely to change from uncontrollable events (ie, natural disasters). In short, the more the number of alternative results constructed, the less expected the event, and the stronger emotional reactions emerge.
The theory of rational imagination
Byrne (2005) outlines a set of cognitive principles that guide the possibilities that people think of when they imagine an alternative to reality. Experiments show that people tend to think about realistic possibilities, rather than unrealistic possibilities, and they tend to think of several possibilities rather than many. Counterfactuals are a special part because they require people to think about at least two possibilities (reality, and alternatives to reality), and to think about the wrong possibility while being right. Experiments have corroborated the suggestion that the principles that guide the most likely to be considered, explains their tendency to focus on, for example, extraordinary events rather than normal events, actions rather than inaction, and events that are newer than previous events in a sequence.
Functional theory
Functional theory sees how counterfactual thinking and its cognitive processes benefit people. Counterfactual serves the preparation function, and helps people avoid mistakes in the past. Counterfactual thinking also serves the affective function to make one feel better. By comparing the current results with less desirable results, the person may feel better about the current situation (1995). For example, a disappointed runner who does not win a race may feel better by saying, "At least I did not come last."
Although counterfactual thinking is very adaptive in its function, there are exceptions. For individuals with severe symptoms of depression, the perception of control is diminished by negative self-perceptions and low self-efficacy. As a result, motivation for self-improvement is weakened. Even when depressed individuals focus on events that can be controlled, their counterfactual is less reasonable and feasible. Epstude and Roese (2008) proposes that excessive counterfactual thoughts can cause people to worry more about their problems and increase distress. When individuals are heavily focused on improving outcomes, they are more likely to engage in maladaptive counterfactual thinking. Other behaviors such as delays can lead to less effective counterfactual thinking. Procrastinators show a tendency to produce more counterfactuals downward than counterfactual upward. As a result, they tend to become careless and lack the motivation to change. Perfectionists are another group who think counterfactual may not work.
Contra rational context
Tshilidzi Marwala introduces a counterfactual counterfactual that is, in fact, maximizing the desired consequences. For example suppose we have a factual statement: Qaddafi supports terrorism and consequently Barack Obama declares war on Libya then his counterfactual is: If Qaddafi does not support terrorism then Barack Obama will not declare war on Libya. Rational counterfactual theory identifies antecedents that provide the necessary consequences for rational decision making. For example, there are explosions in some chemical plants. Contextual contextual con- cern would be what should be the situation to ensure that the probability of an explosion is minimized.
Example
In the case of Olympic Medalist, counterfactual thinking explains why bronze medalists are often more satisfied with the results than silver medalists. Counterfeit thoughts for silver medalists tend to focus on how close they are to the gold medal, the upward counterfactual thoughts about the event, while bronze medalists tend to think counterfactually about how they can not receive medals altogether, displaying counterfactual thoughts down.
Another example is student satisfaction with their value. Medvec and Savitsky studied student satisfaction based on whether their value had just vanished when compared to whether they had just cutoff for the category. Students who have just entered the classroom tend to think counterfactualally down and more satisfied, thinking it could be worse. These students tend to think in terms of "At least I." However, very close students make it the next highest category to show higher dissatisfaction and tend to think upward counterfactual, or focus on how the situation could be better. These students tend to think in terms of "I can."
See also
- Counterfactual history
- Parallel universe (disambiguation)
References
Further reading
- Moffit, Michael L. and Robert C. Bordone (2005). The Handbook of Resolute Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 978-0-7879-7538-8
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments