Counterfactual Thinking

Counterfactual thinking gives individuals the ability to have an alternative view of a particular situation. According to Roese (2004) counterfactual thinking involves application and creation of possible alternatives to already occurred life events such as new models, approaches, theories or frameworks essential to giving meaning to businesses, phenomenon, events or situations. The tendency has an important emotional component necessary for social judgments and decision-making through paradigm
shifts. Countering of facts is an intricate part in the modern societies that help organizations and individuals to have a dense social interaction as well as information flow over time and space. The paper herein is a discussion on the definition and critical analysis of the contribution of researchers on counterfactual thinking (Gilbert, Tenney, Holland & Spellman, 2015).
Psychology has proved that humans’ routinely to contemplate outcomes thought to emerge from the pursuit of a given course of action. The imagination of results is a primary aspect leading to counterfactual thinking. Researchers in the contemporary society are aligned towards the implication of counterfactual thinking on decision-making processes. The decisions made by man over a given issue carry future reality. The results of a decision tend to have consequences in the life of candidates when they appear contrary to expectation. Counterfactuals then tend to occur when the mind represents several past events in judging the effects. For instance, Roese (2004) story on the President Eisenhower’s decision to send the U-2 spy plane that was shot down in May1, 1960; expresses how difficult it was for Eisenhower to make the decision as he had to weigh the pros and cons of the decision. The link between decision making and counterfactual thinking of the American U-2 spy plane clearly demonstrates how counterfactuals impact on the process of decision making (Roese, 2004).
Roese’s work on the connection between counterfactuals and decision making explores the different functionalities and biases existing in the contemporary world. Counterfactuals have resulted in bias decisions as organizations or individuals tend to work with an alternative leading to a better outcome. In businesses, adverse consequences have led to harsh judgments being passed during evaluation of the decision and the decision maker. However, the research proves that as much as counterfactuals may have adverse influences on groups and individuals, its function in the modern world is critical. Counterfactual thinking provides teams the platform for evolution of ideas essential for the growth of an organization. Roese points out how counterfactual thinking improves performance on career development and success as well as interpersonal relationship management. Consideration of Roese’s work provides an arguable platform of how positively and adversely counterfactual influence decision making in the current times (Roese, 2004).
The article of Gilbert et al., (2015) tends to critique the ideologies of Roese (2004). In the authors' view, under the guidance of the legal and perspective theories of blame judgments passed on actor’s mental state need to be distinct from those of whether the artist influenced the outcome. The experiments reported in the article show that in the absence of intent, decision makers are considered to cause the result than ignorant counterparts. The effect attained from the experiments is influenced by counterfactuals. The judgments are developed based on the imagination of how the outcome could have been. In a nutshell, the article explores the human tendency to relate findings to policy makers. Gilbert et al. display the existing conflict built by counterfactuals by linking causal models and morality approaches. To achieve this, the article examines how mental states affect causation judgments (Gilbert et al., 2015).
Intent and foreseeability are likely to influence the causation decisions thus focus need not to be placed on decision makers. Early experiments have proved that the mental position of the actor affects the decision on causal of an outcome with the behavior held constant. For example, a manager under pressure is likely to make a wrong decision on solving an immorality case among employees while the behavior has no influence towards it. The research of Gilbert et al. gives humans a new mechanism of looking at counterfactuals from a holistic point of view. The suggestion of the paper on a multi-step bottom-up process is critical as it provides the community with a multifaceted look towards causation and counterfactual thinking. The ideology of Gilbert et al. critiques the thoughts of Roese on counterfactuals influence on decision making. The analysis points out the limited view of Roese on the concept (Gilbert et al., 2015).
Researches on counterfactuals go beyond influencing decision-making processes. Pectrocelli and Dowd (2009) show how counter facts affect punitive and cognitive perceptions of crime. Humans consider lengthy and severe punishments for crimes effective in reducing or eradicating future crimes. On the contrary, the human thought is disappointed as the courts assign punishment equal to the gravity of the crime caused. The Need for Cognition (NFC) exposes people’s desire to engage highly in effortful cognitive tasks. Contrary to NFC individuals, low-NFC persons tend to accord a punitive approach to crime. The influence of the NFC towards punitive attitudes is enhanced with counterfactual thinking as the processes used by the legal parameters do not reduce crime rates. Despite the difference in thought, the results obtained from the study clearly show that both low and high NFC participants have got no variation in the in the routine of engaging counterfactual thinking. The two groups employ counterfactuals in supporting their stands regarding crime and punishment (Petrocelli & Dowd, 2009).
The three types of research have provided relations between different aspects and counterfactual thinking. Roese (2004) explains the influence counterfactuals have on decision-making processes. However, the ideologies of Gilbert et al. (2015) give a better perception on multifaceted view on how counterfactuals influence decision making. Roese’s work is then critiqued by the ideas of Gilbert et al. as it provides a wider view of the relationship as opposed to blaming the decision maker. Lastly, the contribution of Pectrocelli and Dowd (2009) investigates an existing link between NFC on punitive and cognitive relations to counterfactuals. The result demonstrated that both individuals with low and high NFC use the counterfactual thinking. Therefore, hypothetical thinking influence the way humans respond to several issues in their environment.
In conclusion, counterfactual thinking highly influences the human response to situations. The control is based on the tendency of humans to think of alternative solutions while making decisions over a given phenomenon. The alternative search develops due to the fear of facing negative consequences. Therefore, decisions made in organizations are influenced by counterfactual thinking. Moreover, the individual ability to seek for cognition is affected by the alternative thinking as people consider the failure of real life situation in handling phenomenon such as crime. Therefore, counterfactual thinking is a core component of human choices and perception.




References
Gilbert, E. A., Tenney, E. R., Holland, C. R., & Spellman, B. A. (2015). Counterfactuals, Control, and Causation Why Knowledgeable People Get Blamed More. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(5), 643-658.
Petrocelli, J. V., & Dowd, K. (2009). Ease of counterfactual thought generation moderates the relationship between need for cognition and punitive responses to crime. Personality and social psychology bulletin.
Roese, N. J. (2004). Twisted pair: Counterfactual thinking and the hindsight bias. Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making, 258-273.