This project investigates characteristic features of thoughts about what “could” have happened.
Such thoughts are sometimes exaggerated, but are central for perceptions of good and bad luck (for instance after disasters and accidents), and can also feed experiences of regret.
Teigen, K. H. (2005). When a small difference makes a big difference: Counterfactual thinking and luck. In D. R. Mandel, D. Hilton & P. Catellani (Eds.), The psychology of counterfactual thinking (pp. 129-146). London: Routledge.
Teigen, K. H. (2005). The proximity heuristic in judgments of accident probabilities. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 423-440.
Teigen, K. H. & Jensen, T. K. (2011). Unlucky victims or lucky survivors: Spontaneous counterfactual thinking by families exposed to the tsunami disaster. European Psychologist, 16, 48-57. DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000033.
Teigen, K. H., Kanten, A. B., & Terum, J. A. (2011). Going to the other extreme: Counterfactual thinking leads to polarized judgments. Thinking & Reasoning, 17, 1-29. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2010.537491
Teigen, K. H. & Glad, K. A. (in press). ”It could have been much worse”: Travelers’ accounts of two natural disasters. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism.
Kirkebøen, G. & Teigen, K. H. (in press). Pre-outcome regret: Widespread and overlooked. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.694.
Norwegian version of this page