Polarized imagination: partisanship influences the direction and consequences of counterfactual thinking

Abstract

Four studies examine how political partisanship qualifies previously documented regularities in people's counterfactual thinking ( n = 1186 Democrats and Republicans). First, whereas prior work finds that people generally prefer to think about how things could have been better instead of worse (i.e. entertain counterfactuals in an upward versus downward direction), studies 1a–2 find that partisans are more likely to generate and endorse counterfactuals in whichever direction best aligns with their political views. Second, previous research finds that the closer someone comes to causing a negative event, the more blame that person receives; study 3 finds that this effect is more pronounced among partisans who oppose (versus support) a leader who ‘almost' caused a negative event. Thus, partisan reasoning may influence which alternatives to reality people will find most plausible, will be most likely to imagine spontaneously, and will view as sufficient grounds for blame. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Thinking about possibilities: mechanisms, ontogeny, functions and phylogeny’.

Motivated Counterfactual Thinking and Moral Inconsistency: How We Use Our Imaginations to Selectively Condemn and Condone

“…Motivated counterfactual thinking may play a role. When asked how the current "COVID-19 situation" would be if Donald Trump had defeated Joe Biden in the 2020 election, Republicans tended to agree it would be "a whole lot better," implying Biden deserves blame, whereas Democrats tended to agree it would be "a whole lot worse," implying Trump deserves blame (Epstude et al, 2022).…”

“…Reviews a program of research on the varieties and psychological causes of inconsistencies in moral judgments and behaviors. Epstude, K., Effron, D. A., & Roese, N. J. (2022).…”

“…Going beyond other studies, partisanship also predicted the weight participants gave to this content: Participants blamed whichever president they opposed, more than the president they supported, for negative events that they imagined “came close” to happening. For example, among Trump and Biden supporters who agreed that a catastrophic cyberattack had nearly occurred during Biden presidency, Biden received more blame from Trump supporters than from Biden supporters (Epstude et al, 2022). We observed the same results in an experiment that manipulated perceptions of closeness (Effron et al, n.d.).…”

Thinking about possibilities: mechanisms, ontogeny, functions and phylogeny

“…Other cultural influences, however, may curtail and bias the generation of possibilities. In a series of studies, Epstude et al [70] provide evidence that political polarization leads to a divergence in the type of counterfactual past events that people tend to entertain and endorse. The authors found that, among USA residents, highly partisan Democrats and Republicans were more likely than non-partisans to judge counterfactuals as 'plausible' if those counterfactuals aligned with their political views (e.g.…”