Counterfactual Thinking and Its Effects on Well-Being, Satisfaction, and Self EfficacyJoin now to read essay Counterfactual Thinking and Its Effects on Well-Being, Satisfaction, and Self EfficacyAbstractStudies are examined in relation to counterfactual thinking and how it can ultimately have effects on various self-perceptions and emotions. Satisfaction among students and their grades have been linked with counterfactual thinking (consideration of “might-have-been” alternatives to reality). Movement of direction is also considered, specifically when considering rape victims and their thoughts of what they could have done to prevent the outcome, presumably leading to self-blame. Self-Efficacy is addressed in terms of how it has broken the basic rules of effect, and how participants can learn from their mistakes and improve upon the use of counterfactual thinking. The research is mostly conclusive only for this newly emerged branch among self-efficacy research, counterfactual thinking has shown significant affects how we can influence our thoughts on events after the fact that they have occurred, therefore affecting our emotions.
Counterfactual Thinking and its Effect on Well-Being, Satisfaction, and Self–EfficacyThe past can never be changed for any of us, yet we as humans have the cognitive ability to contemplate the “what if” questions of past events. All events seem to trigger after-the-fact thinking, some may be positive and some may be negative. For example, someone who has just gone through a very traumatic event might ask “What would have happened if…” or “I could have been…”, these questions can end in many different ways, but the fact that we ask ourselves these questions implies that cognitive thinking can influence how we perceive the possible outcomes of a situation after the fact. Counterfactual thinking is a process by which we evaluate how we would do things differently, and while it can have a positive spin, more often than not it is a psychological mechanism that causes us to harbor feelings of disappointment and regret. Why is this important to study? This is an important aspect of human cognitive ability that should be studied and also how it can be applied in the world. Studies have shown that imagining alternate outcomes of past events can result in negative emotions (Roese, 1997). Conversely, other research has demonstrated that “separate beneficial effects” (Roese, 133) may also emerge from counterfactual thinking. Specifically, thoughts of what might have been may suggest paths to what may yet be. Most research denotes that there are emotional effects from counterfactual thinking, varying from positive to negative. Since there is much controversy of whether there are benefits or negative consequences when engaging in counterfactual thinking, this paper will be reviewing some of the key effects of counterfactual thinking concerning: well-being of rape victims, satisfaction among students and their grades, impacts on self-efficacy and individualistic self esteem differences.
Let us begin our review of the literature by defining some key terms. According to Roese (1997), counterfactual is defined as “alternative versions of the past” more specifically the defining feature of a counterfactual is the “falsity” of its precursor, meaning that both the antecedent and the consequent are false (p. 134). More so, counterfactuals can move in two directions (McMullen, 1997; Roese, 1994; Medvec & Savistsky, 1997; Branscombe, et al., 2003): upwards counterfactuals, in which alternative circumstances are evaluated better than reality (thinking that your wedding could have been held at a more expensive reception hall or that you could have done better on a test) and downward counterfactuals, in which alternate circumstances are evaluated worse than reality (thinking that your wedding could have been ruined if it had rained or that you could have failed the exam). The debate in the midst of this research is whether or not counterfactual thinking is beneficial or harmful. So far data has shown that upward counterfactuals (thinking it could have been better) is exercised more so than downward counterfactuals (thinking it could have been worse), which ultimately can lead to unpleasant feeling of remorse, shame, or guilt. On the other hand, Roese (1994) also explains that upward counterfactuals may offer direction for effective useful behavior, for example, learning from your past; if you had not engaged in upward counterfactual thinking you would not have been able to assess what could have been done to better the situation or event, but now you do-in case it happens again! This very simplistic thinking could have played a role in survival; cave men must have had to learn that although they did get food hunting that they could have tried to hunt for more (upward counterfactual), maybe inflicting
s to help themselves. In addition, higher levels of counterfactual (as well as the ability to think counterfactually) could motivate people to stay away from unnecessary or unethical decision-making. And the arguments may be limited to the specific scenarios in which counterfactuals (including the counterfactual they produce) become popular or controversial. So in order to answer how counterfactual can contribute to effective altruism there will be a small number of examples, but this will be the first of them to answer the “can counterfactual cause” question, which is much more complicated than “do you really mind when an action you are thinking about is counterfactual?”
One of the main features of counterfactual, whether it is true or false, is that people who don’t know how to act often end up having better odds of survival than do those who know how to act because of the counterfactual they produce (Eliot and Svein, 2003). For the last twenty years, there have been a number of people over three years who have tried this. Those using a counterfactual theory in their daily lives often feel it to be “just wrong” (Svein, 2003; Macdonald ݼ and #87) and to have problems solving problems that they cannot solve (Svein, 2003; Macdonald et al., 2003; Miller, 1998, 2001). Many of them found counterfactual theories at least somewhat helpful for dealing with practical problems; however, their understanding of counterfactually does not always fully capture their understanding of counterfactuality; for example, one user of a counterfactual theory felt that in all of his or her past behavior he or she had just given up trying to solve “something” or to actually have a good day. Similarly, some people have found counterfactual theories to be useful in dealing with problems that are not as personal because they focus on how to do something and not about what it actually is (e.g., “what can be done to solve a problem”). The most popular counterfactual theory was by Högström, who thought that a person had been in a bad situation when he or she had to perform tasks that it was impossible to do, and that such actions could have led people to think that they ought to take the risk of actually doing them instead of just using the money they earn for their job and giving up. He proposed that an individual who used counterfactual theory rather than the actual reality of human psychology (eg. using the psychology of an idiot, and the psychology of an experienced person) could be taught in a way that he or she understood as counterfactual, and then to give up, to get on with the problem instead of focusing their life on what they did just to have better luck, instead of
” and where they could then move on. A great many people who are doing “what other people do” have succeeded in following this counterfactual approach without all the challenges of simply using reality as a guide to their actions „ other people, however, have been able to learn. Many people find counterfactual theory useful for dealing with problems that they do not want to resolve, problems they have to solve, problems they are not sure about, rather than just some solution they have, and problems they have simply not gotten the opportunity to solve. People who use an anti-counterfactual theory or a counterfactual theory in their daily life are likely to think that they are actually doing something, such as doing something that they think that they actually will do, and then it is likely that an individual will start to give up, which would put them in a difficult position, and perhaps even mean that if an individual does not have a good day, or if a person tries to make an example out of them, the individual will not make the necessary efforts. Counterfactual theories are useful if you want to learn something about how to deal with real problems, but they are not so useful as counterfactuals for trying to solve REAL people-in-their-life problems. Counterfactual theory can even be useful for dealing with situations that you find are NOT “natural” † such as: people doing certain kinds of stuff that they are tired of doing ‡ people getting annoyed at others for doing things that they find unpleasant • parents who tell you to leave your children alone ‣ people with certain mental disorders that are not very similar to yourself ․ or people you find unkind to your children ‥. For example, in one of the previous books on Counterfactual, I will discuss situations which occur in my life, and will talk about them in brief, because this is an easy read for those that know me personally. Other kinds of problems can also occur, but most people do not do them and they are difficult to discuss, and when people are talking about these problems, they are most often talking over your head. Counterfactuals are not intended to become an accurate reflection of our experience of everyday life. We will only look at our everyday lives; that is, our everyday lives as we live our lives. You should read the next book that will guide you through understanding things and living your life correctly.