Roese N
Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-2710, USA.
Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Dec;6(4):570-8. doi: 10.3758/bf03212965.
Recent research on counterfactual thinking is discussed in terms of its implications for decision making. Against a backdrop of the functional benefits of counterfactual thinking, two distinct types of bias, one liberal and one conservative, are discussed. Counterfactuals may cause decision makers to become liberally biased (i.e., capricious) in terms of tactics, but conservatively biased (i.e., rigid) in terms of long-term strategy. That is, counterfactuals may lead to short-term corrective changes that are needless and costly, but they may also lead to long-term overconfidence, blinding the decision maker to possible beneficial strategic adjustments. Recent research on counterfactual thinking, which is inherently multidisciplinary, is reviewed in light of a theoretical structure that posits two mechanisms by which counterfactual effects occur: contrast effects and causal inferences.
本文从反事实思维对决策的影响角度，探讨了近期关于反事实思维的研究。在反事实思维具有功能性益处的背景下，讨论了两种不同类型的偏差，一种是宽松型偏差，一种是保守型偏差。反事实思维可能会使决策者在策略方面出现宽松型偏差（即反复无常），但在长期战略方面出现保守型偏差（即僵化）。也就是说，反事实思维可能会导致不必要且代价高昂的短期纠正性改变，但也可能导致长期过度自信，使决策者对可能有益的战略调整视而不见。鉴于一种理论结构提出了反事实效应产生的两种机制：对比效应和因果推断，本文对本质上具有多学科性质的近期反事实思维研究进行了综述。
