This research examines how counterfactual potency (CP), the multiplicative effect of the likelihoods of the “if” and “then” clauses of counterfactuals, determines the effects of counterfactuals on behavioral intentions. In Study 1, we found that participants who read highly (vs. minimally) mutable vignettes perceived the counterfactuals as more likely and endorsed relevant intentions more. However, CP did not mediate the effect of mutability on intentions. In Studies 2 and 3, we found that CP directly affected intentions and also mediated the effects of mutability on intentions when mutability was specifically manipulated via controllability (Study 2) or norm violation (Study 3). Finally, Study 4 used archival reaction time data to show that more concrete counterfactuals were perceived as more likely and subsequently facilitated intentions. Taken together, the current research provides evidence that more likely counterfactuals facilitate behavioral intentions.
AjzenI. (1977). Intuitive theories of events and the effects of base-rate information on prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(5), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.5.303
CarrollJ. S. (1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(1), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90062-8
4.
CarverC. S.ScheierM. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19
GalinskyA. D.MoskowitzG. B.SkurnikI. (2000). Counterfactuals as self-generated primes: The effect of prior counterfactual activation on person perception judgments. Social Cognition, 18(3), 252–280. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2000.18.3.252
7.
HigginsE. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). Guilford Press.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201–208). Cambridge University Press.
10.
LakensD.ScheelA. M.IsagerP. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963
11.
MaitnerA. T.SummervilleA. (2022). “What was meant to be” versus “what might have been”: Effects of culture and control on counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000295.
12.
MarkmanK. D.GavanskiI.ShermanS. J.McMullenM. N. (1993). The mental simulation of better and worse possible worlds. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1993.1005
13.
MarkmanK. D.McMullenM. N.ElizagaR. A. (2008). Counterfactual thinking, persistence, and performance: A test of the reflection and evaluation model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.01.001
14.
McCreaS. M. (2008). Self-handicapping, excuse making, and counterfactual thinking: Consequences for self-esteem and future motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.274
15.
MyersA. L.McCreaS. M.TyserM. P. (2014). The role of thought-content and mood in the preparative benefits of upward counterfactual thinking. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 166–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9362-5
16.
NascoS. A.MarshK. L. (1999). Gaining control through counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(5), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025005002
17.
PetrocelliJ. V.PercyE. J.ShermanS. J.TormalaZ. L. (2011). Counterfactual potency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021523
18.
PetrocelliJ. V.SetaC. E.SetaJ. J.PrinceL. B. (2012). “If only I could stop generating counterfactual thoughts”: When counterfactual thinking interferes with academic performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1117–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.017
PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J.ZhangZ. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
21.
RamosA. M.BeckerB.BiemerJ. A.ClarkL.FieldsS.SmallmanR. (2016). The role of counterfactual thinking on attitudes toward ADHD medication use. Substance Use & Misuse, 15(4), 508–516. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2015.1126739
22.
ReyesR. M.ThompsonW. C.BowerG. H. (1980). Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.1.2
RoeseN. J.EpstudeK. (2017). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking: New evidence, new challenges, new insights. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 1–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2017.02.001
25.
ShermanS. J.CialdiniR. B.SchwartzmanD. F.ReynoldsK. D. (1985). Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of contracting a disease: The mediating effect of ease of imagery. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(1), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167285111011
26.
ShermanS. J.ZehnerK. S.JohnsonJ.HirtE. R. (1983). Social explanation: The role of timing, set, and recall on subjective likelihood estimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(6), 1127–1143. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.6.1127
27.
SmallmanR. (2013). It’s what’s inside that counts: The role of counterfactual content in intention formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 842–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.004
28.
SmallmanR.McCullochK. C. (2012). Learning from yesterday’s mistakes to fix tomorrow’s problems: When functional counterfactual thinking and psychological distance collide. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(3), 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1858
29.
SmallmanR.RoeseN. J. (2009). Counterfactual thinking facilitates behavioral intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 845–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.002
30.
SmallmanR.SummervilleA. (2018). Counterfactual thought in reasoning and performance. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(4), Article e12376. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12376
SummervilleA.RoeseN. J. (2008). Dare to compare: Fact-based versus simulation-based comparison in daily life. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 664–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.002
33.
TeigenK. H. (1998). When the unreal is more likely than the real: Post hoc probability judgements and counterfactual closeness. Thinking and Reasoning, 4(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467898394193
WalkerR. J.SmallmanR.SummervilleA.DeskaJ. C. (2016). Motivated by us but not by them: Group membership influences the impact of counterfactual thinking on behavioral intentions. Social Cognition, 34(4), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2016.34.4.3
36.
ZeelenbergM.van der PligtJ.de VriesN. K. (2000). Attributions of responsibility and affective reactions to decision outcomes. Acta Psychologica, 104(3), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00034-2
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
