Past research has identified a clear relationship between delay-discounting and impulsive behavior. Those who are notoriously impulsive see the value in the here and now. They discount the value of what’s to come. The real puzzle is why this broken value calculation leading to impulsivity doesn’t fix itself despite repeated negative consequences. In other words, why do we keep doing the things that inevitably lead to disastrous outcomes? And why do some people learn from their past mistakes?

Recent research has turned to the role of counterfactuals in differentiating between those who learn from past risky behavior and those who do not. We often lean towards counterfactual thinking as an emotional and psychological Band-Aid when faced with a negative outcome; we engage in all sorts of “what if”s and “if only”s. Longstanding research has shown that these thought processes might help alleviate some mental agony and offer a functional role in behavioral change.

Counterfactuals, though, come in different flavors. They can be subtractive i.e. “If I hadn’t drank so much wine last night, I wouldn’t have such a bad hangover this morning.” In this case, we remove an element from the situation (the wine). They can also be additive i.e. “If I had opted for juice instead of wine last night, I wouldn’t have such a bad hangover this morning.” This is where we actually add an alternative to our situation, and thus change its potential outcome (the juice).

Furthermore, counterfactuals can also elicit different types of outcomes. We can think of a better situation (not having a hangover) or a worse situation (having a hangover and getting a DUI). Researchers call these upward and downward counterfactuals, respectively, and the current research suggests that there may be one that works better at reducing implicit behavior. In the current study, the researchers aimed to unpack the nuances of the 4 types of counterfactuals (additive, subtractive, upward, and downward) in relation to their relative effects on impulsive behavior.

The study and findings

The study aimed to examine the relationship between counterfactual thinking and impulsivity. Participants first completed a delay-discounting task designed to measure their impulsive decision making in real-time. The task asked participants to choose between a larger sum of money after a delayed period and a smaller amount of money that would be available to them immediately.

The computerized task increased the immediate monetary reward by fifty-cents each trial and kept the larger sum constant at $10. The participant’s ‘impulsivity score’ was measured as the smallest dollar amount they chose to receive immediately. In addition to the behavioral task, participants also completed a self-report measure of their trait style impulsivity.

The researchers then had participants complete a scenario based thought-listing task designed to capture counterfactual thinking. The scenario described a car accident and was written so as to promote counterfactual thinking. The participants were given 5 minutes to list things they thought that had they been different, would have changed the outcome of the scenario. The participants’ responses were then judged by coders for their counterfactual content (the 4 types).

Counterfactuals were considered additive if they inserted a new element to the scenario and subtractive if they removed something from the scenario. Additionally, they were considered upward if they described a better alternative or downward if they offered a worse alternative.

The study found that those who generated fewer counterfactuals in the thought-listing task tended to be more impulsive in the money-choice task. Additionally, the more upward-additive counterfactuals a person generated, the less impulsive they tended to be in the money-choice task. An example of an upward and additive counterfactual sounds something like: “I would have scored better on my exam if only I’d gone to class”. In this case, you’re adding an element (going to class) to the situation that, in turn, results in a better outcome (a better grade).

Past research suggest that additive upward-additive counterfactuals help to enhance future performance because they’re often more specific and creative. By going beyond the premise of the original scenario, you begin to explore new options that might have been overlooked in the past. Further, the extra bit of effort required to conjure them up might actually motivate you to apply them in the future.



Results applied: Think upward and additive