Thinking about what might have been and why it wasn't: counterfactual thinking and attributions in competitive tennis

Abstract

The present study examined both the activation and content of counterfactual thinking, and the amount and type of causal thinking elite tennis players report after negative vs. positive, close vs. distant, and expected vs. unexpected outcomes. The participants were 69 (33 females and 36 males) top regional interclub tennis players. The participants were asked to report their post game counterfactual and causal thoughts on a questionnaire that manipulated outcome valence (i.e., win/loss), margin of victory or defeat (i.e., close/distant), and expectancy of outcome (i.e., expected or unexpected). Participants reported a greater amount of both counterfactual and causal thinking following negative than positive, close than distant, and unexpected than expected outcomes. Participants also imagined how these outcomes could have been different by altering events that preceded them. Outcome valence significantly predicted the content of counterfactual alternatives, such that subtractive counterfactuals (which delete elements to reconstruct the past) were more likely after success whereas additive counterfactuals (which add new elements to reconstruct the past) were more likely after failure. Luck was rated higher for close than distant outcomes and effort and luck were rated higher for unexpected than expected outcomes. These findings are discussed in terms of the functional value of counterfactual thinking and the possibility that counterfactual thoughts may influence causal judgements.