Counterfactual Thinking

Types

In most decisions, there are many counterfactual outcomes and several different ways that counter-factual outcomes can be imagined to occur. First, in decisions under uncertainty, chance factors (the “state of the world”) could be imagined to have been different. For example, the surgical patient might imagine that his surgery had proceeded without the complication. Second, decisions taken by others could have been different. For example, the surgical patient might imagine that his surgeon had chosen a different procedure that could not lead to the complication. Third, the decision of the decision maker could have been different. For example, the surgical patient might imagine that he had chosen a medical treatment (with a successful outcome) [Page 242]instead. Fourth, the decision maker could imagine himself or herself to be a different person, a so-called social counterfactual. For example, the surgical patient might imagine other people he knows with different health problems.

Each counterfactual can potentially result in a comparison between the actual outcome and the counterfactual outcome. The surgical patient might compare his new life with disability to (a) how he imagines his life might have been if the surgery had been uncomplicated, (b) how he imagines his life might have been if the surgeon had chosen a different surgery, (c) how he imagines his life might have been if he had chosen a medical treatment, or (d) how he imagines the lives of his peers (with different health problems) might compare with his new life.

Ease of Imagining Counterfactuals

Although multiple counterfactuals are nearly always available, the ease with which a particular counterfactual outcome is generated or used in comparisons varies. The psychological literature uses the term mutability to refer to the aspects of reality that are most amenable to yielding counter-factuals. For example, exceptional events are more mutable than normal events (so people are more likely to imagine what would have happened if an exception had not occurred than to imagine what would have happened if an exception had occurred). Events under the decision maker's control are typically more mutable than uncontrollable events, actions are more mutable than inactions or omissions, repeatable events are more mutable than one-time events, and effects are more mutable than causes.

Direction and Impact on Postdecision Emotion

Counterfactuals are also referred to by their direction or valence. Upward counterfactuals are alternative outcomes that the decision maker considers superior to the actual outcome. Downward counterfactuals are alternative outcomes that the decision maker considers inferior to the actual outcome. Counterfactual comparisons reliably change the way decision makers feel about their actual decision outcomes (their postdecision affect). Research on counterfactual comparisons has demonstrated that upward counterfactual comparisons, which typically result in lower postdecision satisfaction and more negative postdecision affect, are more common and carry more weight than downward comparisons, which typically result in greater postdecision satisfaction and more positive postdecision affect. In addition, surprising outcomes, which more easily evoke counterfactual alternatives, typically result in more extreme postdecision affect. For example, a rare and surprising recovery is experienced with greater elation than a common and expected return to health.

...