=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2259/aics_31
|storemode=property
|title=Things Could Have Been Worse - The Counterfactual Nature of Gratitude
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2259/aics_31.pdf
|volume=Vol-2259
|authors=Nuala Walsh,Suzanne Egan
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/aics/WalshE18
}}
==Things Could Have Been Worse - The Counterfactual Nature of Gratitude==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2259/aics_31.pdf
Things Could Have Been Worse:
The Counterfactual Nature of Gratitude
Nuala Walsh1, Suzanne M. Egan1
1
Department of Psychology, Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick
Nuala.Walsh@mic.ul.ie, Suzanne.Egan@mic.ul.ie
Abstract. Counterfactual thinking, which contrasts a real event with a hypo-
thetical scenario, is a fundamental characteristic of healthy social, emotional
and cognitive functioning, and frequently triggers affective reactions. The aim
of this research is to investigate what role, if any, different types of counterfac-
tual thinking play in gratitude. Experiment 1 investigates if levels of gratitude
are associated with the generation of both upward counterfactuals (things could
have been better) and downward counterfactuals (things could have been
worse) following the recollection of a negative life event. Results indicate that
thoughts of how much worse things could have been and thinking about a how
the individual could have done more to produce a better outcome, are both sig-
nificantly associated with gratitude. In Experiment 2 we further examine this re-
lationship using the same directional elements of counterfactual thinking but us-
ing a more detailed conceptualization of gratitude. Similar to Experiment 1, the
findings indicate that aspects of counterfactuals relating to thoughts about how
things could have been worse, better, or better if someone else had acted differ-
ently are significantly associated with gratitude. These findings are discussed in
the context of previous research on counterfactual thinking and affect. The im-
plications for the functional theory of counterfactual thought are considered.
Keywords: counterfactual thinking, trait gratitude.
1 Introduction
Counterfactual thinking is the ability to think hypothetically about how things in
the past could have turned out differently. It involves the undoing of both an anteced-
ent and consequent, to imagine an alternative possible world that could have hap-
pened but did not (e.g., ‘If Trump had not been elected president, global international
relations would be better’) [1]. Counterfactual conditionals have long been researched
by philosophers [2, 3], linguists [4] and psychologists [5].
Previous research indicates that counterfactual thinking can fluctuate along various
dimensions such as the direction of comparison, structure, and object of reference [6].
For example, upward counterfactual thinking compares reality to a hypothetically
better outcome (e.g., “If only I had stayed home, the car accident would not have hap-
pened”), while downward counterfactuals compare reality to a hypothetically worse
outcome (e.g., “If I had been driving faster I could have been seriously injured or
killed in the car accident”). Counterfactuals can refer to actions taken by oneself (self-
referent) (e.g., “if only I had taken another route, the crash would not have hap-
pened”), actions taken by another individual (other-referent) (e.g., “if only the other
driver had not driven so fast, things could have turned out differently”) or by no-one
(non-referent) (e.g., “if only the crash had not happened...”).
The aim of the two experiments reported in this paper are to investigate what role,
if any, different types of counterfactual thinking (e.g., upwards versus downwards)
play in gratitude. To date, the role of counterfactual thinking in gratitude has largely
been unexplored and we hypothesize that different types of counterfactual thinking
will be significantly associated with gratitude.
1.1 Counterfactual Thinking and Gratitude
Experiencing a negative life event can often result in an individual imagining an al-
ternative outcome of what could have happened but did not. The functional theory of
counterfactual thinking [7, 8, 9, 10, 11] proposes that thinking about how things could
have turned out differently serves a useful purpose. This approach proposes that coun-
terfactuals may reflect goals and the ways in which these goals can be achieved,
thereby providing insights that may aid future improvements [9]. Previous research
indicates support for this idea in that counterfactual thinking has been associated with
learning from past mistakes [12], and performance improvement [13]. Another im-
portant area in which counterfactual thinking also seems to play a role relates to emo-
tions and affective traits.
Numerous emotions are characterised to some extent by their association with par-
ticular categories of counterfactuals. The comparing of actual events to a counterfac-
tual alternative has been seen to intensify negative emotions such as envy, regret,
shame, guilt, and blame [14,15,16,17,18], and positive emotions such as luck, relief,
sympathy, optimism, life satisfaction, and happiness [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]. The pro-
pensity for upward counterfactual thinking is often associated with negative affect,
whereas the generation of downward counterfactuals has been related to positive af-
fect [25]. The association between counterfactual thinking and affect appears to be
bidirectional, as counterfactual thinking can be triggered by affect, and has also been
demonstrated to stimulate various emotions [25, 26, 27, 28].
One previous study has briefly explored the relationship between counterfactual
thinking and gratitude. This research by Teigen [19] explored the relationship be-
tween the comparative characteristics of luck and thinking counterfactually, and
demonstrated that the association between luck, the experience of envy, and gratitude
may be associated with actual events or a simulated alternative. The findings suggest
that circumstances in which individuals experienced gratitude were the same as events
or states in which individuals also felt luck when anticipating an alternative negative
outcome. However, this study did not examine the individual’s concept of gratitude in
detail, or the individual’s behavior or attitude towards gratitude in a personal or im-
personal scenario.
When classified as a trait, gratitude may be considered as an indebtedness that re-
mains constant across situations, and a ‘generalised tendency to recognise and re-
spond with grateful emotion to the roles of other people’s benevolence in the positive
experiences and outcomes that one obtains’ [29]. To the extent that trait gratitude
moderates an individual’s capacity for reacting to valuable actions with gratitude, it
may lead to distinct emotional experiences. Previous research on gratitude has exam-
ined an extensive range of its associations and causalities on psychological function-
ing, and it has been implicated in improved psychological well-being [30], has been
associated with higher levels of self-esteem and positive affect [31], and has been
positively correlated with stronger social relationships [32]. McCullough et al. [29]
demonstrated that an individual high in dispositional gratitude may experience more
gratitude intensity following a positive action or situation than an individual low in
dispositional gratitude, and suggest higher levels of trait gratitude are generated by an
act of kindness.
In the two experiments that follow we aim to examine the role of counterfactual
thinking in gratitude. We hypothesize that counterfactual thinking will be significant-
ly associated with gratitude, as gratitude by its nature often involves a comparison
between how things are now and how they could be (e.g., ‘if I had not won €100, I
would not have been able to pay that bill’). We also hypothesize that downward coun-
terfactual thoughts about how things could have been worse will have a larger impact
on gratitude than upward counterfactual thoughts about how things could have been
better.
2 Experiment 1: Is counterfactual thinking associated with
gratitude?
The primary aim of this experiment is to examine the relationship between counter-
factual thinking and gratitude. To test our hypothesis, we examine both upward and
downward directional elements of counterfactual thinking together with counterfactu-
al objects of reference such as self-referent, other-referent, and non-referent. Trait
gratitude and counterfactual thinking are operationalized through the completion of
standardised questionnaires.
2.1 Materials and Design
The present study incorporated a within-participants regression with gratitude as
the criterion variable and different types of counterfactual thoughts as the predictor
variables. Counterfactual thinking was operationalized through the completion of The
Counterfactual Thinking for Negative Events Scale (CTNES; 33), measured on an
interval scale of measurement with five subscales. This measure consists of 20 state-
ments regarding the ways in which participants respond to the negative event by rat-
ing the frequency with which the thoughts were experienced using a 5-point Likert-
style (ranging from 1 = never to 5 = very often). The subscales correspond to different
types of counterfactual thoughts based on the direction of the thought and to whom it
refers. The subscales include non-referent downward counterfactuals (e.g. “I think
about how much worse things could have been”), other-referent upward counterfactu-
als (e.g. “If only another person or other people would have acted differently, this
situation would never have happened”), self-referent upward counterfactuals (e.g. “I
think about how much better things could have been if I had not failed to take ac-
tion”), non-referent upward counterfactuals (e.g. “I feel sad when I think about how
much better things could have been”), and context of the negative event (e.g. “To
what extent do you view the negative event as being within your personal control?”).
According to Rye et al. [33], the CTNES has good internal consistency, with a
Cronbach alpha coefficient across subscales ranging from .75 to .86, and a 2-week
test-retest reliability ranging from .73 to .84. In the present study, the Cronbach alpha
coefficient was .79 for the overall scale, and ranged between .74 and .78 for each of
the subscales.
Gratitude was operationalized through the completion of The Gratitude Question-
naire – Six Item Form (GQ-6; 29). The Gratitude Questionnaire measures overall
levels of gratitude, based on four elements of trait gratitude; intensity, frequency,
span, and density. This measure consists of 6 items phrased as closed ended state-
ments that measure participant’s responses to each statement using a 7-point Likert-
style (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Examples of state-
ments included are: “I have so much in life to be thankful for”, and “I am grateful to a
wide variety of people”. McCullough et al. [29] suggest that the GQ-6 has good inter-
nal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .82. In the current study, the
Cronbach alpha coefficient was .77.
2.2 Participants
Participants were 128 Mary Immaculate College Limerick undergraduate students
and members of the general public (50 males, 78 females) aged between 18 and 65
years (M = 30.875, SD = 13.988). Participation in this study was voluntary and partic-
ipants were recruited using a convenience sampling method. Each participant was
required to sign a consent form prior to the commencement of the study.
2.3 Procedure
Testing took place in a quiet room in the presence of the experimenter. All partici-
pants were informed that the purpose of the present study was to investigate the rela-
tionship between counterfactual thinking and gratitude. Participants were requested to
recall a negative event from their past and to consider the types of thoughts experi-
enced following that event. Participants then proceeded to first complete the 20-item
Counterfactual Thinking for Negative Events Scale Questionnaire resulting in the
generation of counterfactual thoughts, followed by the Gratitude Questionnaire – Six
Item Form. Upon completion of the GQ-6, participants completed a demographic
questionnaire detailing their gender and age. Finally, participants were fully de-
briefed by means of a debriefing sheet issued to each individual. Procedures were
approved by the Mary Immaculate College Department of Psychology Research Eth-
ics Committee.
2.4 Results and Discussion
Standard multiple regression was conducted to investigate the impact of the different
types of counterfactual thinking, as measured by the five CTNES subscales, on grati-
tude. The regression model found that counterfactual thinking accounted for 11.9% of
the variance in gratitude scores as measures by the GQ-6, R2adj = .12, F (5,122) =
4.45, p < .001, partial η² = .15. An examination of the β coefficients indicated that not
all aspects of counterfactual thinking (as measured using the CTNES) made a signifi-
cant unique contribution to the regression model. Non-referent downward counterfac-
tuals made the largest unique contribution to the regression model, β = .32, t (122) =
3.57, p < .001, and self-referent upward counterfactuals was the only other type of
counterfactuals to contribute significantly to the model: β = -.26, t (122) = -2.20, p =
.030. Other-referent upward counterfactuals, non-referent upward counterfactuals and
the context of negative event were not significant contributors to the regression model
(Other-referent upward counterfactuals: β = -.09, t (122) = -1.03, p = .308; Non-
referent upward counterfactuals: β = .18, t (122) = 1.15, p = .254; and Context of neg-
ative event: β = -.15, t (122) = -1.51, p = .134).
These results provide support for the hypothesis that counterfactual thinking has a
role to play in gratitude. Non-referent downward counterfactual thinking is signifi-
cantly, positively correlated with dispositional gratitude. Thoughts of how much
worse things could have been is significantly associated with higher gratitude. Results
also indicate a negative correlation between self-referent upward counterfactual think-
ing and gratitude. Thinking about how the individual could have done more to pro-
duce a better outcome is significantly correlated with gratitude, such that lower levels
of these types of counterfactual thoughts are associated with higher gratitude scores.
3 Experiment 2: Is downward counterfactual thinking
associated with gratitude?
The results of Experiment 1 indicated that there is an association between gratitude
and counterfactual thinking. However, there has been wide-ranging classifications of
gratitude in the research literature [29, 42, 44, 45, 46, 39], and variations in how it
should be measured. Recently Morgan, Guilliford and Kristjansson [34] argue that
gratitude is complex and there is need for a more extensive gratitude measure than the
GQ6 that can sufficiently evaluate the multidimensional elements of gratitude, to in-
vestigate its behavioral, cognitive, attitudinal and affective aspects. The Multi-
Component Gratitude Measure (MCGM) [34] encompasses these four components. In
contrast to the GQ-6 [29] this measure offers a broader representation of gratitude and
is presently the only valid and reliable measure that examines the individual’s concep-
tual understanding of gratitude.
The primary aim of Experiment 2 therefore is to examine if the association be-
tween downward counterfactual thinking and gratitude would be replicated in another
study using a more comprehensive measure of gratitude and to extend the findings
Experiment 1. In addition to extending the findings of Experiment 1 using a more
detailed measure of gratitude we also aimed to extend the findings by broadening the
sample of participants using a larger online sample.
3.1 Materials and Design
Similar to Experiment 1 this experiment used a within-participants regression de-
sign involving The Counterfactual Thinking for Negative Events Scale (CTNES; 33),
used in Experiment 1, and The Multi-Component Gratitude Measure (MCGM; 34)
which contains four subscales. The four subscales include gratitude affect (e.g.
“There are so many people that I feel grateful towards”), attitude (e.g. “Gratitude
should be reserved for when someone does not want anything in return”), behavior
(e.g. “I express thanks to those who help me”) and concept (e.g. “A colleague nomi-
nates you for an award at work. If you win, you will receive recognition of your hard
work and a voucher. You are grateful to this person for their help”). According to
Morgan et al. [34], the MCGM has good internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha
coefficient across subscales ranging from .74 to .92. In the present study, the
Cronbach alpha coefficient was .85 for the overall scale and ranged between .84 and
.87 for each of the subscales.
3.2 Participants
A sample of 440 individuals, (235 males, 205 females) took part in this study.
They were aged between 18 and 74 with the majority of participants aged between
“25 to 34” (n = 226, 51.36%), and the remaining participants aged, “18 to 24” (n = 63,
14.32%), “35 to 44” (n = 77, 17.5%), “55 to 64 (n = 20, 4.55%), and “65 to 74” (n =
14, 3.18%). Participants were recruited online through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
(MTurk) crowdsourcing platform [35], and each participant was paid 0.50 US dollars
for taking part in the study. Participants were recruited from English speaking coun-
tries resulting in the sample of listed nationalities being: American (47.7%), Indian
(45.5%), European (3.3%), and Other (3.6%; Nationalities outside of the U.S., India
and Europe).
3.3 Procedure
Participants were recruited online through the Amazon Mechanical Turk
crowdsourcing platform [35]. SurveyMonkey online software [36] was then used
through an embedded link on MTurk to present the materials and collect all the partic-
ipant’s responses. All participants were informed that the purpose of the present
study was to investigate the relationship between counterfactual thinking and grati-
tude and that the study would take approximately 20 to 25 minutes to complete.1 Pre-
ceding data collection, an informed consent form was issued to all participants, in
which participants were asked to read carefully and indicate their consent to partici-
pate before taking part in the study.
Participants were then requested to take a moment to recall a negative event from
their past and to consider the types of thoughts experienced following that event. Par-
ticipants then proceeded to first complete the 20 item Counterfactual Thinking for
1
In addition to completing measures of counterfactual thinking and gratitude, participants also
completed measures related to other personality variables such as life satisfaction, happi-
ness, positive and negative affect, and blame which are not reported in this paper.
Negative Events Scale Questionnaire resulting in the generation of counterfactual
thoughts and measurement of the levels and frequency of these thoughts. This was
then followed by the Multi-Component Gratitude Measure. Finally, participants were
fully debriefed by means of a debriefing sheet. The research was approved by the
Mary Immaculate College Research Ethics Committee (MIREC).
3.4 Results and Discussion
Similar to Experiment 1, standard multiple regression was conducted to explore the
impact of the different types of counterfactual thoughts on gratitude. The regression
model accounted for 8.9% of the variance in gratitude, R2 = .089, F(5,434 ) = .847, p
<.001, partial h 2 = .098. An examination of the β coefficients indicated that not all
aspects of counterfactual thinking (as measured using the CTNES) made a significant
unique contribution to the regression model. Non-referent downward counterfactuals
made the largest unique contribution to the model: β = .264, t(434) = -.533, p <.001.
Other-referent upward counterfactuals, non-referent upward counterfactuals, and the
context of the negative event were all significant contributors to the regression model
also; (other-referent upward counterfactuals: β = -.149, t(434) = -2.764, p = .006;
non-referent upward counterfactuals : β = .129., t(434) =2.144, p = .03; context of the
negative event: β = -.168, t(434) = -2.55 , p < .01). Self-referent upward counterfac-
tuals were not found to be a significant contributor to the model, β = -.062, t(434) = -
.91 , p = .363.
These results indicate that four of the five counterfactual predictor variables signif-
icantly contribute to the regression model. Non-referent downward and non-referent
upward counterfactual thoughts were found to be significantly positively correlated
with dispositional gratitude. Thinking about how a past negative event could have
been worse/better is significantly associated with a more grateful disposition. Results
also indicate a statistically significant negative correlation between other-referent
upward counterfactuals and context of the negative event, and trait gratitude. Think-
ing about a negative event from the past in terms of how another person could have
done more to produce a better outcome, and the context of the event, is significantly
correlated with gratitude. Self-referent upward counterfactuals were not significantly
associated with levels of gratitude.
4 General Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate if there was an association between coun-
terfactual thinking and gratitude and to explore if particular types of counterfactual
thoughts were important in gratitude. Experiments 1 and 2 both provided support for
the hypothesis that counterfactual thinking is involved in gratitude, as evidenced with
two distinct measures of gratitude. In Experiment 1 counterfactual thinking accounted
for 11.9% of the variance in gratitude scores, as measured with the GQ-6, and in Ex-
periment 2 it accounted for 8.9% of the variance in gratitude scores, as measured with
the Multi-Component Gratitude Measure. This finding is consistent with previous
research which demonstrates that counterfactual thinking plays a role in positive af-
fect. Previous studies have demonstrated a significant association between downward
counterfactual thinking and outcome satisfaction [23], relief [21], optimism [22], and
luck [19, 20]. Sweeney and Vohs’s [21] findings indicated that near-miss relief was
significantly associated with the generation of downward counterfactuals.
In addition to finding an association between counterfactual thinking and gratitude,
we also found that downward counterfactual thoughts about how things could have
been worse made a larger contribution to the regression model than upward counter-
factual thoughts in Experiment 1 and this pattern was found in Experiment 2 also.
Thoughts of how much worse things could have been is significantly associated with
a more grateful disposition. This finding is consistent with previous literature. For
example, Barnett and Martinez [22] found an association between non-referent
downward counterfactuals and optimism. The consideration of negative events from
the past in terms of how things could have been worse, resulted in a significant posi-
tive correlation between dispositional optimism and higher levels of optimistic specu-
lation regarding events or situations in the future.
Results from both Experiments 1 and 2 also indicate an association between up-
ward counterfactual thinking and gratitude. Thinking about a negative event from the
past in terms of how the individual themselves (Experiment 1) or someone else (Ex-
periment 2) could have done something differently to produce a better outcome is
significantly negatively correlated with gratitude, with lower levels of these types of
counterfactual thoughts associated with higher levels of gratitude. However, further
investigation of the role of upward counterfactual thinking in gratitude is warranted
given that different aspects of upward counterfactual thinking made significant con-
tributions to the regression models in the two experiments. It may be that the incon-
sistency in findings across the two experiments in relation to upward counterfactual
thinking in the present study is due to the different measures of gratitude used, or it
may be that the impact of upward counterfactual thinking in gratitude is more variable
than the impact of downward counterfactual thinking.
Markman & McMullen [44] suggest that although the application of upward coun-
terfactuals may be related to negative affect when there is a possibility of change to
future events, upward counterfactual thinking has also indicated positive affect. They
suggest that if the content of an upward counterfactual is reflective and the focus is on
a better outcome, it is accompanied by positive affect. Conversely, negative affect
occurs when the upward counterfactual’s content is evaluative. This preparative func-
tion of counterfactuals assists individuals to interpret past actions and thus avoid simi-
lar negative outcomes in the future by directing the shift from the present state to a
future alternative [7].
When interpreting the results from the present research, certain limitations should
be considered. Gratitude can feasibly occur as an affective trait or state [40, 41, 42,
43]. The present research primarily focused on gratitude as an affective trait and did
not examine the influence of counterfactual thinking on state gratitude (momentary
feelings of gratitude individuals may experience after a particular event). Future stud-
ies might also investigate if there is a relationship between state and trait gratitude and
their relationship to thinking counterfactually. Also, the possible bidirectional nature
of the relationship between counterfactual thinking and gratitude has not been consid-
ered in the present research and should be explored further to examine the nature of
the direction of influence.
The present research may offer further insight into future research on the beneficial
effects of using a counterfactual simulation intervention in the treatment of depressive
disorders given the association between gratitude and symptoms of depression [37,
38]. Previous research indicates that individuals who experience episodes of anxiety
and depression often deliberate over failures or past negative events by generating
counterfactuals that serve to exacerbate the symptoms [39]. A better understanding
between the process of thinking counterfactually and trait gratitude may offer further
insights into current positive psychological interventions in the treatment of depres-
sive symptoms.
In conclusion, the findings of the two experiments suggest that counterfactual
thinking has a role to play in gratitude, in particular, counterfactual thoughts about
how things could have turned out worse. These studies are the first to investigate the
association between how different types of counterfactual thoughts are involved in
gratitude and highlights the need for more research to investigate this relationship.
This examination of gratitude as an affective disposition may offer further insights
into the functions and outcomes of thinking counterfactually.
References
1. Byrne, R. M. J. (2016). Counterfactual Thought. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 7.1–
7.23.
2. Stalnaker, R.C. (1968). A Theory of Conditionals. In: W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker, G.
Pearce (eds) The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science (A Se-
ries of Books in Philosophy of Science, Methodology, Epistemology, Logic, History of
Science, and Related Fields). Dordrecht: Springer.
3. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals and Comparative Possibility. In: W. L. Harper, R.
Stalnaker, G. Pearce (eds.) The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of
Science (A Series of Books in Philosophy of Science, Methodology, Epistemology,
Logic, History of Science, and Related Fields). Dordrecht: Springer.
4. Athanasiadou, A. & Dirven, R. (1997). Conditionality, hypotheticality, counterfactuality.
In Angeliki, A. & Dirven, R. (eds.) On Conditionals Again. John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
5. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Scientific American,
246(1), 160–173
6. Roese, N., & Olson, J. (1993a). Self-esteem and counterfactual thinking. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 199–206.
7. Epstude, K., & Roese, N. (2008). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Review, 12(2), 168–192.
8. Epstude, K., & Roese, N. (2011). When goal pursuit fails: the functions of
counterfactual thought in intention formation. Social Psychology, 42(1), 19-27.
9. Roese, N. J., & Epstude, K. (2017). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking: New
evidence, new challenges, new insights. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 56,
1-79.
10. Roese, N., & Olson, J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking: the intersection of affect and func-
tion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 1-59.
11. Roese, N. (1994). The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66(5), 805–818.
12. Morris, M. W., & Moore, P. C. (2000). The lessons we (don’t) learn: counterfactual think-
ing and organizational accountability after a close call. Administrative Science Quarterly,
45(4), 737-765.
13. Maloney, D. M., & Egan, S. M. (2017). The effect of autonomy on counterfactual think-
ing about controllable events. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 337-351.
14. Van De Ven, N., & Zeelenberg, M. (2015). The counterfactual nature of envy: “It could
have been me”. Emotion, 29(6), 954-971.
15. Zeelenberg, M., Van Dijk, W. W., Van der Pligt, J., Manstead, A. S. R., Van Empelen, P.,
& Reinderman, D. (1998). Emotional reactions to the outcomes of decisions: the role of
counterfactual thinking in the experience of regret and disappointment. Organisational
Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 75, 117-141.
16. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. (1986). Norm theory - comparing reality to its alternatives.
Psychological Review, 93(2), 136–153.
17. Spellman, B. A., & Gilbert, E. A. (2014). Blame, cause and counterfactuals: the inextrica-
ble link. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 245-250.
18. Alicke, M. D., Buckingham, J. T., Zell, E., & Davis, T. L. (2008). Culpable control and
counterfactual reasoning in the psychology of blame. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34, 1371-1381.
19. Teigen, K. H. (1997). Luck, envy and gratitude: it could have been different. Scandanavi-
an Journal of Psychology, 38, 313-323.
20. Teigen, K. H., & Jensen, T. K. (2011). Unlucky victims or lucky survivors? Spontaneous
counterfactual thinking by families exposed to the Tsunami Disaster. European Psycholo-
gist, 16, 48-57.
21. Sweeney, K., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). On near-misses and completed tasks: the nature of re-
lief. Psychological Science, 23(5), 464-468.
22. Barnett, M. D., & Martinez, B. (2015). Optimists: it could have been worse; pessimists: it
could have been better. Dispositional optimism and pessimism and counterfactual think-
ing. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 122-125.
23. Medvec, V.H., Madley, S. F., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When less is more: counterfactual
thinking and satisfaction among Olympic Medallists. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69(4), 603-610.
24. Ang, S. H., Lim, E. A. C., Leong, S. M., & Chen, (2015). In pursuit of happiness: Effects
of mental subtraction and alternative comparison. Social Indicators Research, 122, 87-
103.
25. Roese, N. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 133–148.
26. Markman, K., Gavanski, I., Sherman, S., & McMullen, M. (1993). The mental simulation
of better and worse possible worlds. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(1),
87–109.
27. Sanna, L. J. (2000). Mental simulation, affect and personality: A conceptual framework.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 168–173.
28. Sanna, L. J., Turley-Ames, K. J., & Meier, S. (1999). Mood, self-esteem, and simulated al-
ternatives: Thought provoking affecting influences on counterfactual direction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 543-558.
29. McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. A. (2002). The grateful disposition: a
conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,
112–127.
30. Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: an ex-
perimental investigation of gratitude and subjective wellbeing in daily life. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Science, 84(2), 377-389.
31. Kashdan, T. B., Uswaite, G., & Julian, T. (2006). Gratitude and hedonic and eudaimonic
wellbeing in Vietnam War Veterans. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(2), 177- 199.
32. Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond reciprocity: gratitude and relation-
ships in everyday life. Emotion, 8(3), 425-429.
33. Rye, M. S., Cahoon, M. B., Ali, R. S., & Daftary, T. (2008). Development and validation
of the Counterfactual Thinking for Negative Events Scale. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 90(3), 261–269.
34. Morgan, B., Guilliford, L., & Kristjánsson, K. (2017). A new approach to measuring moral
virtues: The Multi-Component Gratitude Measure. Personality and Individual Differences,
107, 179-189.
35. Amazon Web Services Inc. (2018). Amazon Mechanical Turk.
36. SurveyMonkey Inc. (2018). San Mateo, California, US.
37. Markman, K. & Miller, A.K. (2006). Depression, control and counterfactual thinking:
functional for whom? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(2), 210- 227.
38. Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed
anxiety/depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 504-511.
39. Lambert, M. N., Graham, S. M., & Fincham, F. D., & Stillman, T. F. (2009). A changed
perspective: How gratitude can affect a sense of coherence through positive reframing.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 461-470.
40. Ryan, L. H., Newton, N., Gach, E., & LaBelle, O. (2016). State versus trait gratitude:
implications for well-being in midlife. The Gerontologist, 56(3), 243.
41. Emmons, R. A., & Mishra, A. (2011). Why gratitude enhances wellbeing: what we know,
what we need to know. In S. K. Sheldon, T. Kashdan & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing the
future of positive psychology: taking stock and moving forward, (pp. 248-264). New York:
Oxford University Press.
42. Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Stewart, N., Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2008). A socio- eco-
nomic model of trait and state levels of gratitude. Emotion, 8, 281-290.
43. Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: an ex-
perimental investigation of gratitude and subjective wellbeing in daily life. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Science, 84(2), 377-389.
44. Markman, K., & McMullen, M. (2003). A reflection and evaluation model of comparative
thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(3), 244-267.
45. McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude
a moral effect? Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 129-266.
46. Wood, A. M., Froh, J. J., & Geraghty, A. W. A. (2010). Gratitude and wellbeing: a review
and theoretical integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 890-905.