“If Only”: The Good and the Bad of Counterfactuals
One of my all-time favorite movie series is Back to the Future. Not only does it provide exciting glimpses into ’80s fashion, ’50s nostalgia, and the American Wild West, it emphasizes how altering a single moment in history can change everything. If it showed me anything as a kid, it was that I, unlike Marty McFly, was not up for the responsibility of time travel.
Although I learned that history is probably best left unchanged, I often think of how past scenarios could have been different, whether it be in my own past, or in history more generally. These thoughts are called “counterfactuals,” and they’re a topic of interest in the scientific literature due to their impact on our mood and on our understandings of the world.
Counterfactuals are “what could have been.” They are the roads not taken, or the alternative realities. Engaging in counterfactual reasoning is a ubiquitous mental process that we develop from ages 6-12. This concept frequently comes up in psychological, economic, and political science research.1,2
I, personally, am a fervid counterfactual-er. I constantly think back to past events imagining how they might have been better, worse, or simply different. Yet, I wondered, is there any benefit to doing so? Or am I just wasting precious mental energy on scenarios that will never occur?
Research provides insight into how our brains make sense of the past, why we rehash what’s already done, and how doing so can help us.
References
- Rafetseder, E., & Perner, J. (2012). When the alternative would have been better: Counterfactual reasoning and the emergence of regret. Cognition & emotion, 26(5), 800-819.
- Rafetseder, E., Schwitalla, M., & Perner, J. (2013). Counterfactual reasoning: From childhood to adulthood. Journal of experimental child psychology, 114(3), 389-404.
- Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological review, 93(2), 136.
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201-208). New \brk: Cambridge University Press.
- Epstude, K., & Roese, N. J. (2008). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Personality and social psychology review, 12(2), 168-192.
- Connolly, T., Ordóñez, L. D., & Coughlan, R. (1997). Regret and responsibility in the evaluation of decision outcomes. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 70(1), 73-85.
- Eisma, M. C., Epstude, K., Schut, H. A., Stroebe, M. S., Simion, A., & Boelen, P. A. (2020). Upward and Downward Counterfactual Thought After Loss: A Multiwave Controlled Longitudinal Study. Behavior Therapy.
- Markman, K. D., Lindberg, M. J., Kray, L. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2007). Implications of counterfactual structure for creative generation and analytical problem solving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3), 312-324.
- Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization science, 22(1), 60-80.
- Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (1996). Counterfactuals, causal attributions, and the hindsight bias: A conceptual integration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32(3), 197-227.
- Broomhall, A. G., Phillips, W. J., Hine, D. W., & Loi, N. M. (2017). Upward counterfactual thinking and depression: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 55, 56-73.
- Van Hoeck, N., Watson, P. D., & Barbey, A. K. (2015). Cognitive neuroscience of human counterfactual reasoning. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 9, 420.
- Williams, C. W., Lees-Haley, P. R., & Brown, R. S. (1993). Human response to traumatic events: An integration of counterfactual thinking, hindsight bias, and attribution theory. Psychological Reports, 72(2), 483-494.
- Effron, D. A. (2018). It could have been true: How counterfactual thoughts reduce condemnation of falsehoods and increase political polarization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(5), 729-745.
- Effron, D. (2018, May 16). When we don’t find lying immoral. Behavioral Scientist. https://behavioralscientist.org/when-we-dont-find-lying-immoral/
About the Author
Kaylee Somerville
Kaylee is a research and teaching assistant at the University of Calgary in the areas of finance, entrepreneurship, and workplace harassment. Holding international experience in events, marketing, and consulting, Kaylee hopes to use behavioral research to help individuals at work. She is particularly interested in the topics of gender, leadership, and productivity. Kaylee completed her Bachelor of Commerce degree from the Haskayne School of Business at the University of Calgary.
About us
We are the leading applied research & innovation consultancy
Our insights are leveraged by the most ambitious organizations
“
I was blown away with their application and translation of behavioral science into practice. They took a very complex ecosystem and created a series of interventions using an innovative mix of the latest research and creative client co-creation. I was so impressed at the final product they created, which was hugely comprehensive despite the large scope of the client being of the world's most far-reaching and best known consumer brands. I'm excited to see what we can create together in the future.
Heather McKee
BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST
GLOBAL COFFEEHOUSE CHAIN PROJECT
OUR CLIENT SUCCESS
$0M
Annual Revenue Increase
By launching a behavioral science practice at the core of the organization, we helped one of the largest insurers in North America realize $30M increase in annual revenue.
0%
Increase in Monthly Users
By redesigning North America's first national digital platform for mental health, we achieved a 52% lift in monthly users and an 83% improvement on clinical assessment.
0%
Reduction In Design Time
By designing a new process and getting buy-in from the C-Suite team, we helped one of the largest smartphone manufacturers in the world reduce software design time by 75%.
0%
Reduction in Client Drop-Off
By implementing targeted nudges based on proactive interventions, we reduced drop-off rates for 450,000 clients belonging to USA's oldest debt consolidation organizations by 46%
