Counterfactual Thinking

18
Counterfactual Thinking Negative Event Enhances positive mood May allow for the development of new strategies for future use What is CFT? Thoughts about what might have been; what could I have done different (better) What are its effects?

description

Counterfactual Thinking. What is CFT?. Thoughts about what might have been; what could I have done different (better). What are its effects?. Negative Event. Enhances positive mood May allow for the development of new strategies for future use. Counterfactual Thinking (cont.). - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Counterfactual Thinking

Page 1: Counterfactual  Thinking

Counterfactual Thinking

Negative Event

• Enhances positive mood• May allow for the development of new strategies for future use

What is CFT?

Thoughts about what might have been; what could I have done different (better)

What are its effects?

Page 2: Counterfactual  Thinking

A

B

GradesTest

Score

Lowered counterfactual thinking (satisfaction)

Upward counterfactual thinking (dissatisfaction)

Counterfactual Thinking (cont.)

C

Gold Medal

Silver Medal

Bronze Medal

From Medvec et al. (1995): Emotional reactions of Olympic athletes were drivenby comparisons with the most easily imagined alternative outcome (closest in proximity). Prior expectations had no significant effect on their emotions.

Page 3: Counterfactual  Thinking

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 pleasureW won $9, but missed an opportunity for an even greater win, les pleasure.

Page 4: Counterfactual  Thinking

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

Page 5: Counterfactual  Thinking

Study # 2 [Observers inferences about the happiness of Olympic athletes base on actual and expected

finishes]Three criteria:

1) Actual finish2) Expected finish3) 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)

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.

Page 6: Counterfactual  Thinking

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

Page 7: Counterfactual  Thinking

• 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

Study #3 Results?

Page 8: Counterfactual  Thinking

Other Issues

• Role of close calls

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)

Outcome Closeness (closer = more CFT)

• 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)

• Numerical proximity (being the 999th customer when # 1000 gets a prize)

Page 9: Counterfactual  Thinking

Counterfactual Thinking (cont.)Inaction Inertia

75% Off Sale

Plan or think about buying an item but don’t do so

25% Off Sale Unlikely to buy the stock

now even though it

may still be a good

purchase

Stock is selling for

$5.00/share

Plan or think about buying the stock but don’t do so

Stock rises to $10.00/share

Unlikely to buy the item

now even though it

may still be a good deal

Page 10: Counterfactual  Thinking

Leading Questions

Previous Research (similar issues)

Harris (1973):

How tall was the basketball layer?

How short was the basketball player?

79”69”

How long was the movie?

How short was the movie?

130 min.

100 min.

Page 11: Counterfactual  Thinking

Loftus (unpublished studies)

Headache ProductsHow many other products have you tried: 1, 2, 3?

How many other products have you tried: 1, 5, 10?

Avg. 3.3

Avg. 5.2

Do you get headaches frequently, and , if so, how often?

Do you get headaches occasionally, and , if so, how often?

2.2/week

0.7/week

Page 12: Counterfactual  Thinking

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

Page 13: Counterfactual  Thinking

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?

“Strengthen” hypothesis “Construction” hypothesis

Both groups – Did you see a stop sign for Car A?

Stop sign group = 75%Right turn group = 35%

Connection to “Smashed” condition earlier but info. was true, additional data. If false, info. is accepted, then strengthening cannot be the reason for findings

Page 14: Counterfactual  Thinking

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?

B) Was the leader of the twelve demonstrators who entered the classroom a male?

>>>Evidence that a false numerical presupposition can affect answers by a witness

6.4 a week later

8.8 a week later

Page 15: Counterfactual  Thinking

Experiment 3[False presupposition of objects]

Accident film --- speed of a white sports carA) How fast was the white sports car going when it passed

the barn while traveling along the country road?

versus

B) How fast was the white sports car going while traveling along the country road?

One week later: Did you see a barn ? [No barn existed]

17.5% reported seeing a barn

2.7% reported seeing a barn

Page 16: Counterfactual  Thinking

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

Page 17: Counterfactual  Thinking

Experiment #4 Findings

Page 18: Counterfactual  Thinking