View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Up and down: counterfactual closeness is robust to direction of comparison.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Up and down: counterfactual closeness is robust to direction of comparison.
Authors: Doan, Tiffany (AUTHOR), Denison, Stephanie (AUTHOR), Friedman, Ori (AUTHOR)
Source: Cognition & Emotion. Sep2025, Vol. 39 Issue 6, p1301-1311. 11p.
Subjects: Counterfactuals (Logic), Judgment (Psychology), Thought experiments, Intimacy (Psychology), Emotions
Abstract: People often think about how things could have been better or worse. People make these upward and downward comparisons in different situations and with differing emotional consequences. We investigated whether the direction of counterfactual comparisons affects people's judgements of counterfactual closeness. In four preregistered experiments (N = 2,142), participants saw vignettes where agents lost or won a luck-based game. In Experiments 1, 2, and 4, participants judged counterfactual closeness in two ways: if a counterfactual outcome almost happened, and if it easily could have happened. These judgments were affected by different factors, but did not substantially differ based on the direction of comparison. In Experiments 3 and 4, participants predicted agents' emotions – whether losers would be sad, winners would be happy, and whether both would be surprised by the outcome. Emotion predictions showed similar patterns regardless of whether agents lost or won. Participants predicted stronger emotional reactions when the prior probability of the counterfactual outcome was high rather than low, though this effect was somewhat stronger when agents lost. Together, these findings join recent work in suggesting that Almost and Easily judgments tap into distinct forms of counterfactual closeness, and also suggest this distinction is robust to the direction of counterfactual reasoning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Cognition & Emotion is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 187409504
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Up and down: counterfactual closeness is robust to direction of comparison.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Doan%2C+Tiffany%22">Doan, Tiffany</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Denison%2C+Stephanie%22">Denison, Stephanie</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Friedman%2C+Ori%22">Friedman, Ori</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Cognition+%26+Emotion%22">Cognition & Emotion</searchLink>. Sep2025, Vol. 39 Issue 6, p1301-1311. 11p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Counterfactuals+%28Logic%29%22">Counterfactuals (Logic)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Judgment+%28Psychology%29%22">Judgment (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thought+experiments%22">Thought experiments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intimacy+%28Psychology%29%22">Intimacy (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotions%22">Emotions</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: People often think about how things could have been better or worse. People make these upward and downward comparisons in different situations and with differing emotional consequences. We investigated whether the direction of counterfactual comparisons affects people's judgements of counterfactual closeness. In four preregistered experiments (N = 2,142), participants saw vignettes where agents lost or won a luck-based game. In Experiments 1, 2, and 4, participants judged counterfactual closeness in two ways: if a counterfactual outcome almost happened, and if it easily could have happened. These judgments were affected by different factors, but did not substantially differ based on the direction of comparison. In Experiments 3 and 4, participants predicted agents' emotions – whether losers would be sad, winners would be happy, and whether both would be surprised by the outcome. Emotion predictions showed similar patterns regardless of whether agents lost or won. Participants predicted stronger emotional reactions when the prior probability of the counterfactual outcome was high rather than low, though this effect was somewhat stronger when agents lost. Together, these findings join recent work in suggesting that Almost and Easily judgments tap into distinct forms of counterfactual closeness, and also suggest this distinction is robust to the direction of counterfactual reasoning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Cognition & Emotion is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=187409504
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02699931.2024.2434149
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 1301
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Counterfactuals (Logic)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Judgment (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Thought experiments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intimacy (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotions
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Up and down: counterfactual closeness is robust to direction of comparison.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Doan, Tiffany
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Denison, Stephanie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Friedman, Ori
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Text: Sep2025
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 02699931
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Cognition & Emotion
              Type: main
ResultId 1