Verified by 
Key points
- Counterfactual thinking refers to the human tendency to consider how things might have been different.
- Upward counterfactuals consider how things could have been better and downward counterfactuals worse.
- Counterfactuals appear to serve a purpose of evaluating past choices and improving future decision making.
- Counterfactuals may motivate behaviour change and generate specific plans for making better choices.
Last weekend, we hosted a large party to celebrate a big family birthday. Ever the optimists, we assumed that spring weather would be on our side. We invited 60 guests to join outdoor celebrations in our garden. Unfortunately, the unpredictable British weather turned against us. With a meagre 8° Celsius (46° Fahrenheit) and intermittent drizzles, even our heated marquee did little to keep us warm. We did our best to defy the harsh conditions with a plentiful supply of hot drinks and warming food. Yet, I spent the better part of the day apologising to our guests, who were putting on brave faces, while huddling up in big winter coats.
It wasn’t until the day after that my feelings of guilt began to dissipate. I was woken by the sounds of heavy rain drops drumming against the skylights of our home. It was pouring down with rain and temperatures had dropped another few degrees. I quickly dawned on me: Things could have been a whole lot worse on the day of our party! Imagining how things might have turned out differently provided immediate relief.
What is counterfactual thinking?
It could have been worse. This simple thought is an example of what psychologists refer to as “counterfactual thinking”. Broadly speaking, this type of thinking describes human attempts to consider how things may have turned out differently. It involves imagining hypothetical, alternative scenarios which are different from what actually happened.
Counterfactual thinking sounds abstract when trying to define it. Yet, it is surprisingly common and an important part of making and evaluating decisions. Most people engage in some form of counterfactual thinking on a daily basis. You know those niggling “coulda”, “woulda”, “shoulda” thoughts? All are examples of considering alternatives to how things actually turned out.
There are many different types of counterfactual thoughts. Researchers have proposed a number of theory-based distinctions to capture and categorise their differences.
1. Upward versus downward counterfactuals. A key distinction describes tendencies to imagine either better or worse hypothetical scenarios compared to how things actually turned out. In my example of the rainy garden party, I ended up creating a downward counterfactual by considering how things could have turned out worse (pouring rain). By contrast, an upward counterfactual would have involved imagining a better alternative, such as beautiful sunshine and comfortable temperatures.
2. Additive versus subtractive counterfactuals. This distinction refers to thoughts about how adding or omitting a specific behaviour would have created a different outcome. “If only I had ordered a larger marquee and more heat lamps” is an example of considering additional behaviours that might have improved the comfort of our guests. By comparison, “I wish I had never moved to England, where the weather is always pretty rubbish” would indicate counterfactual thoughts of the subtractive type.
3. Self versus other counterfactuals. A final theoretical distinction is made between counterfactuals generated about one’s personal actions and those of others. “I wish I had cancelled the party after checking the weather forecast" is an example of a counterfactual created about decisions made by myself. Alternatively, an other-oriented counterfactual would involve considerations of other decision makers, for example: “My husband should have scheduled the party for the summer.” After all, the late Queen Elizabeth II always celebrated her April birthday on the second Saturday in June!
What’s the point of counterfactual thinking?
Counterfactual thinking is an important and highly prevalent aspect of human cognition, because it appears to serve specific functions for decision making. Psychologists have proposed two separate pathways through which counterfactual thoughts may help to prepare and improve future choices: a content-neutral pathway and a content-specific pathway.
The content-neutral pathway involves the generation of emotional or motivational responses. Thinking about how things may have turned out better can paint a picture of more desirable outcomes. This may motivate us to strive for those outcomes in the future. The content-neutral pathway might also elicit responses of regret of relief. By imagining how the weather could have been even worse for our party, my counterfactual thinking provided emotional comfort. It helped to soften the blow of what I believed to have been poor planning. It put things into perspective and made me realise that the party had been a success after all. People seemed to enjoy themselves and nobody got soaking wet.
The content-specific pathway, by comparison, refers to detailed information contained within our counterfactual thoughts. Explicit ideas about hypothetical actions might help to create a plan for future decision making. For example, the additive counterfactual about ordering a larger party tent could be a useful consideration for organising future outdoor celebrations.
While this functional theory is unlikely to explain and capture all aspects of counterfactual thinking, it offers helpful insights about the evolutionary advantages of the arguably difficult task of creating alternative realities. Mentally reversing reality is a tricky thing to do! Appreciating the scope of our imagination and drawing attention to the advantages of counterfactual thoughts could help us to harness their benefits to the fullest and improve future decisions.
