“If only I could stop generating counterfactual thoughts”: When counterfactual thinking interferes with academic performance

Petrocelli, John V.; Seta, Catherine E.; Seta, John J.; Prince, Lauren

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.017

Cited by 24 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The research conducted by Petrocelli et al 36 involved conscious and deliberate decision making. However, the link between counterfactual thinking and decision making can also be mediated by learning inhibition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitfalls of Counterfactual Thinking in Medical Practice: Preventing Errors by using more Functional Reference Points

Petrocelli

2013

Journal of Public Health Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCounterfactual thinking involves mentally simulating alternatives to reality. The current article reviews literature pertaining to the relevance counterfactual thinking has for the quality of medical decision making. Although earlier counterfactual thought research concluded that counterfactuals have important benefits for the individual, there are reasons to believe that counterfactual thinking is also associated with dysfunctional consequences. Of particular focus is whether or not medical experience, and its influence on counterfactual thinking, actually informs or improves medical practice. It is hypothesized that relatively more probable decision alternatives, followed by undesirable outcomes and counterfactual thought responses, can be abandoned for relatively less probable decision alternatives.Design and MethodsBuilding on earlier research demonstrating that counterfactual thinking can impede memory and learning in a decision paradigm with undergraduate students, the current study examines the extent to which earlier findings can be generalized to practicing physicians (N=10). Participants were asked to complete 60 trials of a computerized Monty Hall Problem simulation. Learning by experience was operationalized as the frequency of switch-decisions.ResultsAlthough some learning was evidenced by a general increase in switch-decision frequency across block trials, the extent of learning demonstrated was not ideal, nor practical.ConclusionsA simple, multiple-trial, decision paradigm demonstrated that doctors fail to learn basic decision-outcome associations through experience. An agenda for future research, which tests the functionality of reference points (other than counterfactual alternatives) for the purposes of medical decision making, is proposed.Significance for public healthThe quality of healthcare depends heavily on the judgments and decisions made by doctors and other medical professionals. Findings from this research indicate that doctors fail to learn basic decision-outcome associations through experience, as evidenced by the sample’s tendency to select the optimal decision strategy in only 50% of 60 trials (each of which was followed by veridical feedback). These findings suggest that professional experience is unlikely to enhance the quality of medical decision making. Thus, this research has implications for understanding how doctors’ reactions to medical outcomes shape their judgments and affect the degree to which their future treatment intentions are consistent with clinical practice guidelines. The current research is integrated with earlier research on counter-factual thinking, which appears to be a primary element inhibiting the learning of decision-outcome associations. An agenda for future research is proposed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitfalls of Counterfactual Thinking in Medical Practice: Preventing Errors by using more Functional Reference Points

Petrocelli

2013

Journal of Public Health Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A series of studies by Petrocelli and colleagues (e.g., Petrocelli & Harris, 2011;Petrocelli, Seta & Seta, 2013;Petrocelli, Seta, Seta, & Prince, 2012; see also Kruger, Wirtz, & Miller, 2005) confirmed this finding. For example, students who generated counterfactuals about a failed item of a multiple-choice practice exam (e.g., "If I had read the answer choices more thoroughly…") were subsequently less likely to study exam topics related to that item than exam topics related to items for which they had not generated counterfactuals (Petrocelli et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…For example, students who generated counterfactuals about a failed item of a multiple-choice practice exam (e.g., "If I had read the answer choices more thoroughly…") were subsequently less likely to study exam topics related to that item than exam topics related to items for which they had not generated counterfactuals (Petrocelli et al, 2012). In other words, counterfactuals, including controllable ones, may provide an erroneous sense of competence (e.g., "I mastered the topic but I did not read the question carefully") which in turn may hinder efforts toward improvement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Questioning the preparatory function of counterfactual thinking

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do individuals mentally modify reality (e.g., "If it hadn't rained, we would have won the game")? According to the dominant view, counterfactuals primarily serve to prepare future performance. In fact, individuals who have just failed a task tend to modify the uncontrollable features of their attempt (e.g., "If the rules of the game were different, I would have won it"), generating counterfactuals that are unlikely to play any preparatory role. By contrast, they generate prefactuals that focus on the controllable features of their ensuing behavior (e.g., "If I concentrate more, Iwill win the next game"). Here, we test whether this tendency is robust and general.Studies 1a and 1b replicate this tendency and show that it occurs regardless of whether individuals think about their failures or their successes. Study 2 shows that individuals generate relatively few controllable counterfactuals, unless explicitly prompted to do so. These results raise some questions regarding the generality of the dominant view according to which counterfactuals mainly serve a preparatory function.

show abstract

“…By identifying how an outcome could have turned out better, upward counterfactuals can highlight strategies to improve future performance. Consistent with their activation by self‐improvement motives, upward counterfactuals can strengthen intentions (Roese, ; Smallman, ; Smallman & Roese, ), increase motivation (Dyczewski & Markman, ; Markman et al, ), facilitate behavior regulation (Epstude & Roese, ; Roese, ; Roese & Epstude, ), and improve future outcomes (Morris & Moore, ; Nasco & Marsh, ), though other work finds they may interfere with task performance and impede goal progress (McCrea, ; Petrocelli et al, ; Petrocelli et al, ). Simultaneously, contrasting the better alternative with reality amplifies negative feelings like guilt and regret (Gilovich & Medvec, ), particularly for individuals with depression (Broomhall et al, ; Roese et al, ).…”

Section: Counterfactual Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the earliest research on counterfactual thought, debate has raged about whether counterfactual thinking is functional (Kahneman & Miller, ; Mercier et al, ; Petrocelli, Seta, & Seta, ; Roese, ; Sherman & McConnell, ). Counterfactuals facilitate causal reasoning (Spellman & Gilbert, ; Wells & Gavanski, ), intention formation (Roese, ; Smallman, ; Smallman & Roese, ), motivation (Dyczewski & Markman, ; Markman, McMullen, & Elizaga, ), and behavioral change (Morris & Moore, ; Nasco & Marsh, ); however, they can also bias judgments and reasoning (Goldinger, Kleider, Azuma, & Beike, ), increase negative affect and symptoms of depression and anxiety (Broomhall, Phillips, Hine, & Loi, ), fuel victim‐blaming (Branscombe, Owen, Garstka, & Coleman, ; Sherman & McConnell, ), and interfere with task performance (Petrocelli et al, ; Petrocelli, Seta, Seta, & Prince, ). Rather than trying to determine whether the balance of evidence suggests that counterfactuals are beneficial or dysfunctional, we suggest that the better question is “what are the conditions under which counterfactuals will be functional?” These conditions concern both the nature of the counterfactual and the context for the strategic behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterfactual thought in reasoning and performance

Smallman

Summerville

2018

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Counterfactual thoughts mutate reality to imagine how things might have been different than they actually are. These types of thoughts are more frequent when the antecedent is unusual or the outcome is temporally or numerically close. Counterfactuals have functional benefits for causal reasoning, motivation, intentions, and behavior change. However, they can also bias or hinder these same phenomena under certain conditions. In this article, we review the processes by which counterfactuals produce functional (vs. dysfunctional) outcomes and suggest that this relies on four essential criteria: a causal antecedent is identified accurately; the antecedent can be acted upon by the individual; the counterfactual thought facilitates the means or motivation to alter future behavior; and a future relevant opportunity for application is recognized. Counterfactuals will be functional to the extent that they satisfy all four criteria.

show abstract

“If only I could stop generating counterfactual thoughts”: When counterfactual thinking interferes with academic performance

Cited by 24 publications

References 43 publications

Pitfalls of Counterfactual Thinking in Medical Practice: Preventing Errors by using more Functional Reference Points

Pitfalls of Counterfactual Thinking in Medical Practice: Preventing Errors by using more Functional Reference Points

Questioning the preparatory function of counterfactual thinking

Counterfactual thought in reasoning and performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About