The relationship between counterfactual thinking and emotional reactions to event outcomes: Does one account fit all?

Atkinson, L.; Bell, David M.; Feeney, Aidan

doi:10.3758/pbr.16.4.724

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Adults consider information beyond the current event to infer their own and others’ emotions, including beliefs, thoughts, and expectations (Atkinson et al, 2009; Lagattuta, 2014; Lagattuta et al, 2015; Lagattuta & Kramer, in press; Lara et al, 2019; Mrkva, Westfall, & Van Boven, 2019; Payir & Guttentag, 2016; Roese, 1997; Shepperd & McNulty, 2002). We identified another factor that adults utilize when determining emotions: They expect the past to bias reactions to current emotional events.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, adults believe that holding previously low expectations (vs. high expectations) leads to more positive emotions after an outcome is known (Lara, Lagattuta, & Kramer, 2019; Shepperd & McNulty, 2002). They also appreciate that thinking about how things could have been better leads to more negative feelings than if the alternative had not been considered; likewise, imagining how an outcome could have been worse improves emotional wellbeing (Atkinson, Bell, & Feeney, 2009; Payir & Guttentag, 2016; Roese, 1997). More generally, adults understand that people’s thoughts and interpretations of a situation can bias their affective responses (Kramer & Lagattuta, in press; Lagattuta, 2014; Lagattuta & Kramer, in press; Lagattuta et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consistency among social groups in judging emotions across time.

Kramer

Parra

Lara

et al. 2022

Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We measured judgments about emotions across time. In Study 1 (N ϭ 254) and Study 2 (N ϭ 162),LGBTQ-Latinx, straight-Latinx, LGBTQ-White, and straight-White emerging adults rated how they would feel if a perpetrator acted positively (P) or negatively (N) toward them in single, isolated events. In Study 2, participants also responded to a new emotions across time task where they judged how they would feel interacting with a hypothetical perpetrator across three timepoints: (1) an initial past event, (2) a recent past event, and (3) an uncertain future-oriented event (e.g., seeing the perpetrator again). Participants further predicted their thoughts and decisions in the uncertain future-oriented event. The past emotional events appeared in various sequences (PP, NN, NP, PN). Results indicated that participants judged events as emotionally unambiguous when occurring first in a sequence or in isolation (positive events feel better than negative events). In contrast, initial events shaped emotional reactions to subsequent events: Participants responded more intensely to episodes that were preceded by events of the same valence. In addition to this augmenting effect, initial negative events were especially sticky: Participants rated a positive event following a negative event as feeling less good than when a positive event appeared first or in isolation, but they judged negative events to feel equivalently bad regardless of order. When evaluating future-oriented affective states, participants drew from the prior experiences and prioritized the recent past (more positive emotions, thoughts, and decisions for PP Ͼ NP Ͼ PN Ͼ NN). Effects replicated across all social groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Consistency among social groups in judging emotions across time.

Kramer

Parra

Lara

et al. 2022

Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Counterfactual thinking and educational psychology

Hill¹

2017

Educational Psychology in Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experience of regret is unaffected by concurrent working memory load

FitzGibbon,

Putt,

Feeney

et al. 2024

RoutledgeOpenRes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background When facing the consequences of decisions, people often experience evaluative emotions such as regret. The experience of regret is the result of the comparison between the actual outcome of one’s actions and a better counterfactual outcome that could have occurred had one acted differently in the past. Despite increasing interest in counterfactual thinking and regret, little is known about the type of cognitive processes involved with regret –whether it is underpinned by reflective or intuitive processes. The extant literature provides contradictory evidence: theoretical assertions and developmental work point towards reflective processes, requiring access to capacity-limited cognitive resources whereas, some experimental and neuroscientific evidence point towards intuitive processes. Methods In the current study, adults (N = 20) completed a commonly used gambling task known to elicit regret under high or low working memory load. Results Ratings of regret were not affected by concurrent working memory load (Bayes Factors provided strong evidence for the null hypothesis). Conclusions We conclude that the experience of regret in a commonly used gambling task is unaffected by concurrent working memory load. This suggests that, in adults, regret is not always reliant on reflective cognitive processes and does not require access to central cognitive resources.

show abstract

The relationship between counterfactual thinking and emotional reactions to event outcomes: Does one account fit all?

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

Consistency among social groups in judging emotions across time.

Consistency among social groups in judging emotions across time.

Counterfactual thinking and educational psychology

Experience of regret is unaffected by concurrent working memory load

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About