Counterfactual Thinking
What is CFT?
Thoughts about what might have been; what could I have done different (better)
What are its effects?
• Enhances positive mood
Negative Event
• May allow for the development of new
strategies for future use
Counterfactual Thinking (cont.)
Test
Score
Gold Medal
Grades
A
Upward counterfactual thinking
(dissatisfaction)
Silver Medal
Bronze Medal
B
Lowered counterfactual thinking
(satisfaction)
C
From Medvec et al. (1995): Emotional reactions of Olympic athletes were driven
by comparisons with the most easily imagined alternative outcome (closest in proximity).
Prior expectations had no significant effect on their emotions.
Category-based counterfactuals [Proximity of an outcome to some break
point or standard of performance]:
Gold
Silver ‘‘I almost. . . ’’
Bronze “ At least I ...”
4th Place
Expectation-based counterfactuals: Based on own recent performance,
recent performance of competitors, predictions (e.g., coaches, media, betting
lines)
Decision Affect Theory: Able to describe instances in which people feel less
pleasure with an objectively better outcome (e.g.,
Participants won $5 and avoided a large loss , greater pleasure
W won $9, but missed an opportunity for an even greater win, les pleasure.
Expectations and CFT
Study 1: Judge the emotional reactions of athletes in the 2000
Summer Olympics (watch videos); N = 26
•
Actual finish had an effect on the perceived happiness of athletes
Gold medalists (M = 7.9)
Silver medalists (M = 6.6)
Bronze medalists (M = 6.3)
Non-medal winners (M = 4.3)
• Athletes with lower expectations were happier with their performance
• Bronze medalists who were not expecting a medal appeared happier than
silver medalists expecting the gold
Regression analysis: Actual finish and the difference between actual and
expected finish were significant predictors
Study # 2
[Observers inferences about the happiness of Olympic athletes
base on actual and expected finishes]
Three criteria:
Estimated utilities of actual finishes reflected
Medvec qualitative and categorical distinctions.
Psychological differences between gold and
silver finishes was greater than the difference
between silver and bronze finishes, with the
largest difference occurring between the bronze
finish and fourth place.
1) Actual finish
2) Expected finish
3) Athletes beliefs in the expected finish
[e.g., participants asked to imagine an Olympic athlete who believes there is
an excellent chance of finishing 1st, but they actually finish 2nd and wins
a silver medal]
Use of 100 (extremely elated) to -100 (extremely disappointed) scale [for Gary]
Findings?
•
•
•
•
Gold medalists were extremely elated -- only a slight influence of expectations
Silver medalists were elated, unless they expected the gold
Bronze medalists were happy, but not when their expectations were higher
Bronze medalists who exceeded their expectations happier than silver medalists who
fell short of expectations (expecting gold)
Study #3
[Test between expectancy-based
counterfactuals and category-based counterfactuals]
• Practice test with feedback (establishing prior expectations; 90th–100th
percentile or 50th–60th percentile)
or
• Practice test without feedback
• Actual test of verbal ability and placed into categories with “break points”
similar to silver and bronze medal winners
• Outcomes ($$$) based on “actual” performance to establish break points
[>9oth = $7, 80-90th = $3, 70th-80th = $2, Below 70th = $0]
• Students randomly assigned to performance feedback conditions of $3
(80th–90th percentile) or $2 (70th–80th percentile)
• Students rated their emotional reactions and described their thoughts
Study #3 Results?
• Overall, participants felt better with higher outcomes and lower expectations.
Expectations made objectively better outcomes feel subjectively worse
• Students receiving $2, but expected $0, felt better than those who received $3
while expecting $7
• $3 winners were happier than the $2 winners (against the categorical position)
•
Surprise was a significant predictor of emotions (the more pleasantly
surprised people felt about their performance, the greater their pleasure)
•
Students who expected to win $7 were more likely than those who believed
they would win $0 to make upward counterfactual comparisons
•
Contrary to the category-based processing hypothesis, $2 winners were more
likely to make upward counterfactuals than $3 winners
•
For students receiving no feedback, their pleasure was directly related to
actual outcomes and not to nearby breakpoints
Outcome Closeness (closer = more CFT)
Other Issues
• 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)
• Role of close calls
• Numerical proximity (being the 999th
customer when # 1000 gets a prize)
Silver medalist loses a race by 1/100 second but beats bronze medalist by
several seconds (likely to use upward CFT)
Silver medalist loses to gold medalist by several seconds but beats bronze
medalist by 1/100 sec. (likely to make downward CFT) not make upward
CFT unless had expectations for gold medal). Here, a close call can override
prior expectations
• Role of Social Comparisons (I didn’t win the gold but I beat my long-time
rival – downward CFT)
• Role of Mixed-Emotions -- experience happiness and sadness simultaneously
(e.g., Silver medalist with very low expectations – both upward and
downward CFT can occur)
Counterfactual Thinking (cont.)
Inaction Inertia
75% Off
Sale
Stock is selling
for $5.00/share
Plan or think
about buying an
item but don’t do
so
25% Off Sale
Plan or think
about buying the
stock but don’t do
so
Unlikely to buy
the item now
even though it
may still be a
good deal
Stock rises to
$10.00/share
Unlikely to buy
the stock now
even though it
may still be a
good purchase
Leading Questions
Previous Research (similar issues)
Harris (1973):
How tall was the basketball layer?
79”
How short was the basketball player?
69”
How long was the movie?
130 min.
How short was the movie?
100 min.
Loftus (unpublished studies)
Headache Products
How many other products have you tried: 1, 2, 3?
Avg. 3.3
How many other products have you tried: 1, 5, 10?
Avg. 5.2
Do you get headaches frequently, and , if so, how often?
2.2/week
Do you get headaches occasionally, and , if so, how often?
0.7/week
Recently Witnessed Events
(Loftus, 1974; Loftus & Zanni, 1975)
Film depicting multiple car accident ---
Did you see a ...
versus
Did you see the ...
More likely to report seeing something
Loftus & Palmer (1974): Film of car accidents:
How fast were the cars going when
they collided, bumped, contacted, hit?
How fast were the cars going
when they smashed?
Higher estimate of speed (41 mph
vs. 35 in “hit” condition)
2x more likely to report presence
of glass at scene
Question Wording and Answers to
Following Questions
[Role of True and False Presuppositions]
Experiment 1: Accident Film: Car ran stop sign, turns right into traffic, other
cars stop to avoid it and 5-car collision occurs
Questions (randomly given to one of 2 groups):
1) How fast was Car A (ran stop sign car) going when it ran the stop sign?
2) How fast was car A going when it turned right?
Both groups – Did you see a stop sign for Car A?
Stop sign group = 75%
Right turn group = 35%
“Strengthen” hypothesis
“Construction” hypothesis
Connection to “Smashed”
condition earlier but info.
was true, additional data. If
false, info. is accepted, then
strengthening cannot be the
reason for findings
Experiment 2
Student Revolution film consisting of 8 demonstrators
Randomly assigned to one of the two conditions below --- Yes or No answer right
away
A) Was the leader of the four demonstrators who entered the classroom a male?
6.4 a week later
B) Was the leader of the twelve demonstrators who entered the classroom a male?
8.8 a week later
>>>Evidence that a false numerical presupposition can affect answers by a witness
Experiment 3
[False presupposition of objects]
Accident film --- speed of a white sports car
A) How fast was the white sports car going when it passed the barn while
traveling along the country road?
17.5% reported seeing a barn
versus
B) How fast was the white sports car going while traveling along the
country road?
2.7% reported seeing a barn
One week later: Did you see a barn ? [No barn existed]
Experiment 4
[Impact of just asking a question about a
nonexistent object]
Accident film: Car collides with a baby carriage pushed by a man
Conditions:
1) Direct version: Asked about items not in the film (e.g., Did you see a school bus in
the film)
2) False Presupposition version: Did you see the children getting on the school
bus?
3) Control: Only filler questions asked
Experiment #4 Findings