IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0237644.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dispositional optimism weakly predicts upward, rather than downward, counterfactual thinking: A prospective correlational study using episodic recall

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica Gamlin
  • Rachel Smallman
  • Kai Epstude
  • Neal J Roese

Abstract

Counterfactual thoughts center on how the past could have been different. Such thoughts may be differentiated in terms of direction of comparison, such that upward counterfactuals focus on how the past could have been better, whereas downward counterfactuals focus on how the past could have been worse. A key question is how such past-oriented thoughts connect to future-oriented individual differences such as optimism. Ambiguities surround a series of past studies in which optimism predicted relatively greater downward counterfactual thinking. Our main study (N = 1150) and six supplementary studies (N = 1901) re-examined this link to reveal a different result, a weak relation between optimism and upward (rather than downward) counterfactual thinking. These results offer an important correction to the counterfactual literature and are informative for theory on individual differences in optimism.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica Gamlin & Rachel Smallman & Kai Epstude & Neal J Roese, 2020. "Dispositional optimism weakly predicts upward, rather than downward, counterfactual thinking: A prospective correlational study using episodic recall," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237644
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237644
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237644
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237644&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0237644?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Nosek, Brian A. & Ebersole, Charles R. & DeHaven, Alexander Carl & Mellor, David Thomas, 2018. "The Preregistration Revolution," OSF Preprints 2dxu5, Center for Open Science.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    2. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    3. Chin, Jason & Zeiler, Kathryn, 2021. "Replicability in Empirical Legal Research," LawArchive 2b5k4_v1, Center for Open Science.
    4. Hannah Fraser & Tim Parker & Shinichi Nakagawa & Ashley Barnett & Fiona Fidler, 2018. "Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, July.
    5. Bettina Bert & Céline Heinl & Justyna Chmielewska & Franziska Schwarz & Barbara Grune & Andreas Hensel & Matthias Greiner & Gilbert Schönfelder, 2019. "Refining animal research: The Animal Study Registry," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-12, October.
    6. Yuki Yamada, 2021. "How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, January.
    7. Kraft-Todd, Gordon T. & Rand, David G., 2021. "Practice what you preach: Credibility-enhancing displays and the growth of open science," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-10.
    8. Leonid Tiokhin & Minhua Yan & Thomas J. H. Morgan, 2021. "Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(7), pages 857-867, July.
    9. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    10. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    11. Jelte M Wicherts & Marjan Bakker & Dylan Molenaar, 2011. "Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-7, November.
    12. Vigren, Andreas & Pyddoke, Roger, 2020. "The impact on bus ridership of passenger incentive contracts in public transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 144-159.
    13. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    14. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    15. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Aurelie Seguin & Wolfgang Forstmeier, 2012. "No Band Color Effects on Male Courtship Rate or Body Mass in the Zebra Finch: Four Experiments and a Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-11, June.
    17. Dragana Radicic & Geoffrey Pugh & Hugo Hollanders & René Wintjes & Jon Fairburn, 2016. "The impact of innovation support programs on small and medium enterprises innovation in traditional manufacturing industries: An evaluation for seven European Union regions," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1425-1452, December.
    18. Li, Lunzheng & Maniadis, Zacharias & Sedikides, Constantine, 2021. "Anchoring in Economics: A Meta-Analysis of Studies on Willingness-To-Pay and Willingness-To-Accept," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    19. Diekmann Andreas, 2011. "Are Most Published Research Findings False?," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 231(5-6), pages 628-635, October.
    20. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237644. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.