User talk:Bb.1025

Hey Brittany. It's Paul from your class. Hope you're having a great day. --Enlowpat (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brittany. This is Dr. D. with feedback about your articles. I have reviewed, briefly, the interesting articles you have posted to your queue and find this articles extremely doable, because of its theoretical basis, grounding in social psychology, and relevance to the history of psychology: Counterfactual thinking

The others are "OK", but not as directly relevant. I would not be adverse to you improving one of them, but do not feel they are as directly relevant from a developing history of psychology perspective as the one on counterfactual thinking.

Finally, I am rejecting for several reasons the article on the weapons effect. It is very limited in scope and, as a phenomenon, I believe that you would be taking on a big load in making it relevant for the history of psychology.

I recommend that you focus on the article on counterfactual thinking, if you like that topic.

Let me know of any questions WebFlower1 (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Sources: Counterfactual Thinking

McLoy, R., & Byrne, R. M.(2000). Counterfactual thinking about controllable events. Memory and Cognition, 28,1071-1078. doi: 10.3758/BF03209355

Sanna L. J., Turley-Ames, K., & Meier, S. (1999). Mood, self esteem, and simulated alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 543-558. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.543

Epstude, K., & Roese N. J. (2008). The functional thinking of counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 168-192. doi: 10.1177/1088868308316091

Fuschia M. Sirois, F. M., Monforton, J., & Simpson, M.(2010). “If only I had done better”: Perfectionism and the Functionality of Counterfactual Thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1672-1692. doi:10.1177/014616721038761

Roese, N.J., & Olson, J.M. (Eds.). (1995). What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Counterfactual thinking is a term of psychology that describes the tendency people have to imagine alternatives to reality. Humans are predisposed to think about how things could have turned out differently if only..., and also to imagine what if?.

Counterfactuals are conditional prepositions, containing an antecedent and a consequence e.g.,If Matt had ran, he would have caught the bus.

Overview

Counterfactual literally means, contrary to the facts. A counterfactual thought occurs when a person modifies a factual antecedent and then assesses the consequences of that mutation. A person may imagine how an outcome could have turned out differently, and they can reflect on howif the antecedents that led to the that event might have been were different. For example, a person may reflect upon how a car accident could have turned out, and they can reflect on by imagining how some of the antecedents might have been different e.g., if only I hadn't been speeding... or the same even if I had been going slower.... People can imagine alternatives that are better or worse than reality, e.g., if only I hadn't been speeding, my car wouldn't have been wrecked or if I hadn't been wearing a seatbelt I would have been killed (Roese & Olson, 1995). People can contemplate the consequences of the alternative outcome. Their counterfactual thoughts These thoughts can affect their emotions, such as regret, guilt, relief, or satisfaction; , their social ascriptions such as blame and responsibility, and their causal judgments (Markman, Klein, & Suhr, 2009).

Counterfactual thinking is marked during the period immediately after a negotiation has ended. In this context, the participants are more likely to dwell on alternative outcomes which were plausibly missed rather than thinking about the unwanted consequences which were effectively avoided.

In fact, one of the most significant areas where counterfactuals arose was in social or political philosophy. Most treatments of society had to be limited to a strictly "logical" analysis, else they would be condemned to being viewed as "idealistic" or "unrealistic", certainly not "scientific". If one were to talk about how society might be different (for example, not based upon slavery), one was viewed as being hopelessly unscientific or even "romantic". How then to discuss a society not yet existent (a society without slavery, to continue the example)? Counterfactual reasoning provided such a way to escape the limits of a strictly "logical" analysis, yet not be idealistic. However, can counterfactual reasoning be viewed as "logical" (or scientific)?

The well known philosopher Nicholas Rescher (as well as others) has written about the interrelationship between counterfactual reasoning and Modal logic. The relationship between counterfactual reasoning based upon Modal logics may also be exploited in literature or Victorian Studies, painting and poetry.

History

The origin of counterfactual thinking has philosophical roots and can be traced back to early philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato who pondered the epistemological status of subjunctive suppositions and their nonexistent but feasible outcomes. In the seventeenth century, the German philosopher, Leibniz, argued that there could be an infinite number of alternate worlds, so long as they were not in conflict with laws of logic (Roese & Olson, 1995). The well known philosopher Nicholas Rescher (as well as others) has written about the interrelationship between counterfactual reasoning and Modal logic. The relationship between counterfactual reasoning based upon Modal logics may also be exploited in literature or Victorian Studies, painting and poetry.

More recently, counterfactual thinking has gained interest from a psychological perspective. Whereas cognitive psychologists have been interested in studying counterfactuals as a method of explaining memory and learning processes(see Fillenbaum, 1974), social psychologists study cognitive functioning in a larger, social context (Roese & Olson, 1995)Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (1982) pioneered the study of counterfactual thought, showing that people tend to think 'if only' more often about exceptional events than about normal events. Many related tendencies have since been examined, e.g., whether the event is an action or inaction, whether it is controllable, its place in the temporal order of events, or its causal relation to other events (Mandel, Hilton, & Catellani, 2005).

Early research on counterfactual thinking took the perspective that these kinds of thoughts were indicative of poor coping skills, psychological error or bias, and generally dysfunctional in nature (see Epstude & Roese, 2008). As research developed, a new wave of insight beginning in the 1990’s began taking a functional perspective, believing that counterfactual thinking served as a largely beneficial behavior regulator. Although negative affect and biases arise, the overall benefit is positive for human behavior (Epstude & Roese, 2008).

Types of Counterfactual Thinking

Directionality

Based on the Theory of Social Comparison, a counter factual may be upward or downward. An upward counterfactual involves comparing the present outcome to a better outcome, telling you how to get ahead e.g., If I took the job, I would have made more money whereas a downward counterfactual compares the present outcome to a worse outcome, informing how to keep things from getting worse in the future e.g., If I went to a different school, I would be making less money (Epstude & Roese, 2008). Upward counterfactuals are more frequent than downward counterfactuals (Roese, 1997).

Additive/ Subtractive

A counterfactual statement may involve the action or inaction of an event that originally took place. An additive statement involves engaging in an event that did not originally occur e.g., I should have taken medicine wheres a subtractive statement involves removing an event that took place e.g.,I should have never started drinking (Epstude & Roese, 2008).

Self vs. Other

This distinction simply refers to whether the counterfactual is about actions of the self e.g., I should have slowed down or someone else’s actions e.g., The other driver should have slowed down. Self counterfactuals are more prevalent than Other counterfactuals (see Roese, 1997).

Theories of Counterfactual Thinking

Daniel Kahneman and Dale Miller (1986) proposed that the cognitive processes that give rise to counterfactual thoughts include memory retrieval processes by which exceptional events recruit their normal counterparts. Ruth M.J. Byrne (2005) proposed that the mental representations and cognitive processes that underlie the imagination of alternatives to reality are similar to those that underlie rational thought, including reasoning from counterfactual conditionals.

In Popular Culture

In the fourth series of the CBS comedy series The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon Cooper and Amy Farrah Fowler develop a game called 'Counterfactuals' which is based on changing one accepted state of the universe and postulating the answer to a question based on such a change. For example: "In a world where Rhinoceroses are domesticated pets, who wins the Second World War?"

References

• Byrne, R.M.J. (2005). The Rational Imagination: How People Create Alternatives to Reality. MA, Cambridge: MIT press.
• Epstude, K., & Roese N. J. (2008). The functional thinking of counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 168-192. doi:10.1177/1088868308316091
• Fillenbaum, S. (1974). Information aplified: Memory for counterfactual conditionals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 88-108. doi:10.1037/h0035693
• Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136-153.
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In Kahneman, D. P. Slovic, and Tversky, A. (Eds.). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. pp. 201-208. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Markman, K., Klein, W. & Suhr, E. (2009). Handbook of mental simulation and human imagination. Hove, Psychology Press.
• Moffit, Michael L. and Robert C. Bordone. (2005). The Handbook of Dispute Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 10-ISBN 0787975389/13-ISBN 9780787975388; OCLC 183926885
• Roese, N. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133-148. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.133
• Roese, N.J. & Olson, J.M. (1995). What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Category:Cognitive psychology

de:Kontrafaktisches Denken

My sandbox

Hi Brittany, I peer reviewed your paper. Great job! You seem to have a strong grasp on the assignment and the topic you chose. Here is the full review based on the guidelines Dr. D gave us:

After reading her revised article, I have come to the conclusion that Brittany’s revisions were well done. The information was well presented and well cited. There were only a few small revisions/corrections to be made. 1. Lead section – There is a strong lead section in the beginning that accurately depicts what will be presented throughout the rest of the article. 2. There appears to be accurate citation and summarization. It does not seem as though any of the article was cut and pasted from another source without citation. 3. Everything within the article is easily understood. And when terms are field-specific, they are well explained. 4. All the wikilinks work properly and are appropriate. 5. A neutral point of view is maintained throughout the article. The article clearly states fact about counterfactual thinking. 6. The sources within the article appear to be strong and from reputable sources. 7. Very clear article. It was able to give me a stronger understanding on the topic. 8. Some small typos: a. “A counterfactual though occurs when a person” – did you mean thought? b. “produce negative emotions, however they may also produce” – should be “emotions; however,” c. Watch for some run on sentences that could be broken up. Or where it could benefit from a , 9. The page is set up and categorized in a very clear and appropriate manner. Headings and subheadings help to specify what is being read. 10. The importance of this article is clear. There is much detailed evidence about the subject; however, the amount of information is not overwhelming. 11. I am unclear if the citations are done correctly. I was unable to click on and access the references used. It may be beneficial to allow them to be accessible. As for citations, it appears that they are done correctly. However, it may be better to place the references right after what they pertain to instead of lumping them together at the end of the paragraph. 12. The references do appear to be formatted properly, other than the fact that you cannot click on the majority of them (aren’t in blue). I’m not sure if this would be correct or incorrect. 13. Yes the “educational assignment” template is included on the discussion page!

1. All references appear to support the point made within the article that they pertain to. 2. All citations are done consistently. 3. Everything that seems relevant is already covered within the article. 4. Great Job! The article is strong with minimal mistakes!!!

Great Job -Brianna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.31.125 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)