Kai Epstude

The Functional Theory of Counterfactual Thinking

Counterfactuals are thoughts about alternatives to past events, that is, thoughts of what might have been. This article provides an updated account of the functional theory of counterfactual thinking, suggesting that such thoughts are best explained in terms of their role in behavior regulation and performance improvement. The article reviews a wide range of cognitive experiments indicating that counterfactual thoughts may influence behavior by either of two routes: a content-specific pathway (which involves specific informational effects on behavioral intentions, which then influence behavior) and a content-neutral pathway (which involves indirect effects via affect, mind-sets, or motivation). The functional theory is particularly useful in organizing recent findings regarding counterfactual thinking and mental health. The article concludes by considering the connections to other theoretical conceptions, especially recent advances in goal cognition.

The ups and downs of social comparison: Mechanisms of assimilation and contrast

Social comparisons influence self-evaluations in multiple ways. Sometimes self-evaluations are assimilated toward a given standard. At other times, they are contrasted away from the standard. On the basis of the selective accessibility model (T. Mussweiler, 2003a), the authors hypothesized that assimilation results if judges engage in the comparison process of similarity testing and selectively focus on similarities to the standard, whereas contrast occurs if judges engage in dissimilarity testing and selectively focus on differences. If these alternative comparison mechanisms are indeed at play, then assimilative and contrastive social comparisons should be accompanied by diverging informational foci on similarities versus differences. Results of 5 studies support this reasoning, demonstrating that assimilation results under conditions that foster similarity testing, whereas contrast occurs under conditions that foster dissimilarity testing. Furthermore, assimilative social comparisons are accompanied by a general informational focus on similarities, whereas contrastive comparisons are accompanied by a focus on differences.

Overlapping Mental Representations of Self, Ingroup, and Outgroup: Unraveling Self-Stereotyping and Self-Anchoring

Smith and collaborators presented strong response time evidence for overlapping mental representations of the self and relevant ingroups, and they interpreted their findings as reflecting that people define themselves in terms of their ingroups. Besides on inferences from ingroup to self (self-stereotyping) however, self-ingroup overlap could also be based on inferences from the self to the ingroup (self-anchoring). The present research tackled this interpretational ambiguity and empirically distinguished self-anchoring versus self-stereotyping as processes possibly under-lying self-ingroup overlap. Results from three studies revealed stronger evidence for inferences from self to ingroup (selfanchoring) than the other way round (self-stereotyping).

What You Feel Is How You Compare: How Comparisons Influence the Social Induction of Affect

Concordant and discordant affective reactions can occur after the mere perception of another persons affective expression. Most previous theorizing has been concerned with the explanation of affective concordance, typically referred to as emotional contagion, although discordant affect has received little attention. The authors propose an integrative account for the explanation of both outcomes based on a social comparison framework. Studies 1 and 2 suggest that two distinct types of comparison processes can trigger concordant or discordant affective reactions. Study 3 extends these findings by demonstrating that the influence of comparison processes on affect in an established mood contagion paradigm. The authors attempt to integrate previous research into the present account.

Relatively Fast! Efficiency Advantages of Comparative Thinking

Comparisons are a ubiquitous process in information processing. Seven studies examine whether, how, and when comparative thinking increases the efficiency of judgment and choice. Studies 1-4 demonstrate that procedurally priming participants to engage in more vs. less comparison influences how they process information about a target. Specifically, they retrieve less information about the target (Studies 1A, 1B), think more about an information-rich standard (Study 2) about which they activate judgment-relevant information (Study 3), and use this information to compensate for missing target information (Study 4). Studies 2-5 demonstrate the ensuing efficiency advantages. Participants who are primed on comparative thinking are faster in making a target judgment (Studies 2A, 2B, 4, 5) and have more residual processing capacities for a secondary task (Study 5). Studies 6 and 7 establish two boundary conditions by demonstrating that comparative thinking holds efficiency advantages only if target and standard are partly characterized by alignable features (Study 6) that are difficult to evaluate in isolation (Study 7). These findings indicate that comparative thinking may often constitute a useful mechanism to simplify information processing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

Alpha-band activity reflects reduction of mental effort in a comparison task: A source space analysis

Comparison processes contribute to many core phenomena of social cognition research. Whenever humans judge a given target, they rely on comparisons with a pertinent standard. We propose that comparison processes may be so ubiquitous because they reduce mental effort. To investigate this possibility, we used dense-array Electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings together with a minimum norm source projection approach. As the dependent variable, we examined changes in parietal alpha (8-12 Hz) amplitude during a judgment task. Spectral changes in the alpha frequency range have been reliably related to attentional load, cognitive arousal, or mental effort. Two groups of participants (n=22) were procedurally primed to solve a series of target judgments in a more comparative (experimental group) versus more absolute (control group) manner. While the participants performed the critical judgment tasks, we recorded changes in alpha amplitude. Continuous EEG was transformed into a spherical source space using the minimum norm (L2) estimate and spectral changes were subsequently calculated in the source domain. Statistical parametric mapping in combination with permutation statistics was employed to map regions showing significant group differences. Results demonstrate that comparative processing was associated with smaller changes in alpha amplitude than absolute processing. This difference was most pronounced at parietal source locations, where alpha reduction was at a maximum. Temporal analysis suggested that this effect was present particularly during task preparation and execution. We conclude that comparative information processing may reduce mental effort in judgment tasks.

Life regrets and the need to belong

The present research documents a link between regret and the need to belong. Across five studies, using diverse methods and samples, the authors established that regrets involving primarily social relationships (e.g., romance and family) are felt more intensely than less socially based regrets (e.g., work and education). The authors ruled out alternative explanations for this pattern and found that it is best explained by the extent to which regrets are judged to constitute threats to belonging. Threats to belonging at the regret level and the need to belong at the individual level were strong predictors of regret intensity across multiple regret domains. These findings highlight the central role social connectedness plays in what people regret most.

Regret and counterfactual thinking in the face of inevitability: The case of HIV-positive men

Regret and counterfactual thoughts have been extensively studied in laboratory settings characterized by unlimited future options. Yet, evidence of counterfactual thought and its effects in real-life situations is scarce. The present study demonstrates the influence of regret and counterfactuals on HIV-seropositive individuals (N = 182). Results show that HIV-specific regrets as well as counterfactuals exert negative influence on well-being. However, counterfactuals also increased the likelihood to behave differently in the future by indicating stronger safe-sex intentions. Retrospectively, participants experienced a relatively high level of responsibility for their infection, which increased the experience of regret. Taken together, our results show that regret and counterfactuals have functional and dysfunctional consequences in this health-related context. We discuss the theoretical implications as well as the practical consequences of our findings.

Blocking-out auditory distracters while driving: A cognitive strategy to reduce task-demands on the road

The current research examined how drivers handle task-demands induced by listening to the radio while driving. In particular, we explored the traces of a possible cognitive strategy that might be used by drivers to cope with task-demands, namely blocking-out auditory distracters. In Study 1 (N=15), participants listened to a radio-broadcast while watching traffic videos on a screen. Based on a recall task asking about what they had listened to, we created baseline scores reflecting the general levels of blocking-out of radio-content when there was no concurrent driving task accompanying the radio-listening. In Study 2 (N=46), participants were asked to complete two drives in the simulator: one drive in high-complexity traffic and another in low-complexity traffic. About half of the participants listened to a radio-broadcast while driving, and the other half drove in silence. The radio-listeners were given the same recall task that we had used in Study 1. The results revealed that the participants who drove while listening to the radio (Study 2) recalled less material from the radio-broadcast as compared to the participants who did not drive (Study 1). In addition, the participants who drove while listening to the radio recalled less talk-radio excerpts when driving in high-complexity traffic than when driving in low-complexity traffic. Importantly, listening to the radio did not impair driving performance. Together, these findings indicate that blocking-out radio-content might indeed be a strategy used by drivers to maintain their driving performance.

Fast similarities: efficiency advantages of similarity-focused comparisons.

People constantly have to make efficient use of their limited cognitive resources. Recently, T. Mussweiler and K. Epstude (2009) demonstrated that comparative thinking simplifies information processing and increases the efficiency of judgment. However, there are different types of comparative thinking. While comparing 2 entities, people may focus on either similarities or dissimilarities between target and standard. The authors propose that these 2 comparative thinking styles differ in their efficiency. Specifically, the authors hypothesize that comparisons with a focus on similarities lead to more focused information processing and faster judgments than comparisons with a dissimilarity focus. In line with these hypotheses, the authors demonstrate that participants are indeed faster at judging the similarity of 2 stimuli (Study 1) and that they search for less target information in a comparative judgment task (Study 2) if they focus on similarities rather than dissimilarities. Focusing on similarities thus appears to be the more efficient comparative thinking style.