The Functional Basis of Counterfactual Thinking
By N. Roese. 1994
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Bernhard Schölkopf
- Francesco Locatello
- Yoshua Bengio
- Anirudh Goyal
- Nan Rosemary Ke
- Ruth M. J. Byrne
- Stefan Bauer
- N. Roese
Citations in the corpus
- Toward Causal Representation Learning (2021, positive): “These findings are consistent with work in cognitive psychology [65], arguing that counterfactuals allow to reason about the usefulness of past actions and transfer these insights to corresponding behavioral intentions in future scenarios [145], [199], [203].”
- Towards Causal Representation Learning (2021, positive): “These findings are consistent with work in cognitive psychology [64], arguing that counterfactuals allow to reason about the usefulness of past actions and transfer these insights to corresponding behavioral intentions in future scenarios [203, 199, 145].”
- The Dissatisfaction of Having Your First Offer Accepted: The Role of Counterfactual Thinking in Negotiations (2002, background): “Roese (1994) found that instructions to engage in upward counterfactual thinking following an initial anagram task increased behavioral intentions to engage in success-facilitating behaviors and actually increased per formance on a subsequent anagram task.”
- How Emotion Shapes Behavior: Feedback, Anticipation, and Reflection, Rather Than Direct Causation (2007, unknown): “Often it is too late to do anything about something bad that has already happened, but counterfactual thinking can enable the person to learn a lesson so as to avoid repeating the misfortune in the future (Landman, Vandewater, Stewart, & Malley, 1995; Markman, Gavanski, Sherman, & McMullen, 1993; Ro”
- The effects of near wins and near losses on self-perceived personal luck and subsequent gambling behavior (2003, background): “…thinking (upward) involves the mutation of events so that a better than observed outcome is imagined, and its opposite (downward) involves the mutation of events so that a worse than observed outcome is imagined (e.g., Markman, Gavanski, Sherman, & McMullen, 1993, 1995; Roese, 1994; Sanna, 1996).”
- Coming to grips with the past: Effect of repeated simulation on the perceived plausibility of episodic counterfactual thoughts (2013, unknown): “Conversely, thinking about how good things could have turned out worse—downward counterfactuals—tends to elicit feelings of relief and satisfaction (Markman et al., 1993; Roese, 1994; Roese & Olson, 1995; Mandel et al., 2005).”
- Event detail and confidence in gambling: The role of counterfactual thought reactions (2010, background): “” Second, these upward counterfactuals lead one to be better prepared for future similar decisions (Markman et al., 1993; Roese, 1994) – ‘‘I see how the loss could have been avoided, and I won’t make that same mistake again.”
- The social context of undermining behavior at work (2006, background): “This rift plays a role in determining the magnitude of the employee’s reaction to the event (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998, 2001) by making the deprived state more salient (Folger & Kass, 2000; Roese, 1994).”
- What We Regret Most Are Lost Opportunities: A Theory of Regret Intensity (2009, methodology): “The domains are rankordered in line with Roese and Summerville’s (2005) meta-analysis, with the more commonly regretted domains presented first. The first column depicts perceptions of future opportunity for each domain. The remaining columns depict perceived past opportunity, regret, and satisfacti”
- A Theory of Regret Regulation 1.0 (2007, background): “In another effort, Saffrey and Roese (2006) investigated how frequent and intense people experienced a range of different positive and negative emotions.”
- Learning to de-escalate: The effects of regret in escalation of commitment (2008, background): “Whereas counterfactuals ( Roese, 1994, 1997 ) might have allowed individuals to contemplate what they should have done instead of escalating, analogical reasoning (Gentner et al., 1997) might have created a structural (rather than a superficial, surface) understanding of the situation, allowing indi”