Counterfactual Thinking Dima Gorelik

Counterfactual thinking describes a state of affair in which you’ve done

something you regret, which then causes you to think in a manner of ‘if only I

could’ve done things differently’, this in turn leads you to imagining an

alternative scenario in which things could’ve turn out for the better.

While this process usually makes you feel worse (by contemplating your

bad performance and possible better alternatives) Roese claims that’s

actually a blessing in disguise. This is the case because in the long run it

creates an inner commitment to learn from your mistakes and do better in

comparable future scenarios.

Roese’s second assertion is that counterfactual thinking and negative

affect form a type of symbiotic relationship. Negative affect contributes to the

formation of counterfactual thinking and counterfactual thinking creates

additional negative affect. This is the part where it gets tricky because we

need the negative affect in order to learn from our mistakes but indulging in it

in an uncontrolled manner may contribute to the formation of depression or

the maintenance of such prior condition. When counterfactual thinking is

“done right” a process of upward comparison is usually the case, that is,

comparing yourself to someone better off in order to reach those heights or do

better. This, of course, is the ideal scenario.

Furthermore, Roese divides the counterfactual process into two stages,

activation and content. The first determines whether the process of

counterfactual thinking is ‘turned on’ in the first place and the second creates

the end scenario for the antecedent. Activation is determined by the existence
of affect (usually negative) and content by the normalcy of antecedent

conditions (usually when isn’t normal).

The last theoretical mechanisms mentioned by Roese are contrast effect

and causal inference. The first describes the phenomena of comparing

yourself to a negative or positive standard and feeling better or worse in

return. The second deals with inferring about causal determinants of the

questioned behavior; what lead to what and who’s at fault are the usual

concerns.

Lastly, I want to draw attention to the process of counterfactual thinking,

depicted in the figure below. The process is pretty straightforward till the fork

into negative affect vs. causal inference. The causal inference part allows the

person to determine which behaviors are suitable for similar future situations

and form positive expectancies and intentions, while the negative affect part

can easily deteriorate the person into a depression loop if not for the inhibition

mechanism preventing this in many a case. Roese provides indirect evidence

for the existence of the inhibition link, one of the more persuasive is that

depressed individuals experience difficulty in that very stage, allowing the

negative affect to perpetuate.

 The theory is illuminating in the psychopathological field of depression

studies, it offers many insights on that account. On a more basic level the

theory is useful for evolutionary psychologists like David Buss, considering

that the theory deals with our psychological toolkit which enhances our ability

to survive.

For me, a personal point of appeal is the part about upward and downward

comparison. It’s interesting to note the yo-yo effect of those types of thinking.

When you engage in upward comparison you feel worse but there’s a

commitment to do better next time, while engaging in downward comparison

makes you feel better but it can play a role in reducing motivation to learn and

challenge yourself.