Literature Review on Counterfactual Thinking

This article was downloaded by: [Florida International University] On: 04 September 2015, At: 07:13 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Click for updates

Cognition and Emotion Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pcem20

On the counterfactual nature of envy: “It could have been me” Niels van de Vena & Marcel Zeelenberga a Department of Social Psychology & TIBER, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands Published online: 15 Sep 2014.

To cite this article: Niels van de Ven & Marcel Zeelenberg (2015) On the counterfactual nature of envy: “It could have been me”, Cognition and Emotion, 29:6, 954-971, DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2014.957657

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.957657

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

On the counterfactual nature of envy: “It could have been me”

Niels van de Ven and Marcel Zeelenberg

Department of Social Psychology & TIBER, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

We examined whether counterfactual thinking influences the experience of envy. Counterfactual thinking refers to comparing the situation as it is to what it could have been, and these thought processes have been shown to lead to a variety of emotions. We predicted that for envy the counterfactual thought “it could have been me” would be important. In four studies we found a clear link between such counterfactual thoughts and the intensity of envy. Furthermore, Studies 3 and 4 revealed that a manipulation known to affect the extent of counterfactual thinking (the perception of being close to obtaining the desired outcome oneself), had an effect on the intensity of envy via counterfactual thoughts. This relationship between counterfactual thinking and the experience of envy allows for new predictions concerning situations under which envy is likely be more intense.

Keywords: Envy; Counterfactual thinking; Appraisal; Social comparison.

Envy is the emotion that arises when someone else is better off in a domain that we find important. For example, people are envious of a neighbour’s new car, a colleague’s hard-earned promotion, or the undeservedly high grade of a classmate. It is a frustrating experience that can lead to both a desire that the other loses the advantage and a motivation to improve oneself (Parrott & Smith, 1993; Smith & Kim, 2007; Van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2009). Here we hypothesise that counterfactual thinking (generat- ing thoughts about how the current situation could have been different; Roese, 1997) impacts the intensity of the emotion envy. Counterfactual thinking has been shown to influence a number of

emotions, such as guilt and shame (Mandel & Dhami, 2005; Niedenthal, Tangney, & Gavanski, 1994), regret and disappointment (Zeelenberg et al., 1998), and sadness (Mandel, 2003). We believe counterfactual thoughts to also play a key role for envy.

We base this expectation on the fact that counterfactuals are comparative thoughts, and that envy is inherently a comparison-based emo- tion in which another person serves as the input of the comparison. We are not the first to predict that counterfactual thinking increases the intensity of envy (Ben-Ze’ev, 1992; Coricelli & Rustichini, 2010; Elster, 1991), but to the best of our knowledge we are not aware of a direct empirical

Correspondence should be addressed to: Niels van de Ven and Marcel Zeelenberg, Department of Social Psychology & TIBER,

Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. E-mails: [email protected]; marcel@

tilburguniversity.edu

© 2014 Taylor & Francis 954

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015

Vol. 29, No. 6, 954–971, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.957657

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

test of this relationship. Expecting a relationship

between counterfactuals and emotions is also

consistent with Frijda’s (1988) laws of emotion that describe the regularities of emotional experi-

ence. As a case in point, Frijda’s Law of Compar- ative Feeling states that “The intensity of emotion depends on the relationship between an event and

some frame of reference against which the event is

evaluated” (p. 353). We first discuss the relevant literature regarding envy and counterfactual think-

ing, and next present the studies testing the

relationship between counterfactual thoughts and

the intensity of envy.

Envy

Envy is the pain caused by the good fortune of

others (Aristotle, 350BC/1954). Experiencing it is

condemned in the catholic tradition (as it is one of

the seven deadly sins) and is generally considered

to be a socially undesirable response. This negative

view of envy is not surprising, as research found it

to lead to a variety of negative behaviour (from

irrational decision-making to negative behaviour

towards the envied person, see Smith & Kim,

2007, for an overview). Furthermore, people who

often experience envy are typically less satisfied

with their life (Smith, Parrott, Diener, Hoyle, &

Kim, 1999). At the same time, envy can be a

productive emotion leading to positive outcomes.

Envy can motivate people to do better (Van de

Ven et al., 2009), for example by motivating to

improve one’s position in an organisation (Schau- broeck & Lam, 2004) and by actually increasing

effort and performance on intellectual tasks (Van

de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2011).

For an emotion with such consequential moti-

vational effects (both constructive and destructive),

it is important to find out when people experience it

and which factors amplify or attenuate the experi-

ence. Specifically, we expected that the more people

think the counterfactual thought it could have been

me in that situation, the stronger their envy will be.

Let us now turn to the relevant literature on

counterfactual thinking.

Counterfactual thinking

Counterfactual thoughts are thoughts about how the present situation could have been different, and people typically compare the situation as it is to what it could have been (Kahneman & Miller, 1986; Roese, 1997). The comparative aspect is at the core of counterfactual thinking and thus also at the core of how counterfactual thinking relates to emotions (e.g., Van Dijk & Zeelenberg, 2005). Counterfactual thinking gives rise to feelings of general affect, as for example found in research on Olympic medalists (Medvec, Madey, & Gilovich, 1995). These authors found that silver medalists displayed more agony than bronze medalists, as the silver medalists focused on the gold they could have had, while the bronze medalists focused on all those other athletes that did not have a medal.

Furthermore, counterfactual thinking also gives rise to specific emotions. For example, research found that regret arises if one realises that if a different decision was made, a bad outcome would have been prevented. These counterfactual thoughts can take the form of “if only I had…”. For disappointment these thoughts typically take the form of “if only it was…” (Zeelenberg et al., 1998). Shame and guilt can also be distinguished by the type of counterfactual thoughts that lead to these emotions (Niedenthal et al., 1994). Shame is related to counterfactual thoughts like “if only I weren’t…” and guilt to counterfactual thoughts like “if only I hadn’t…”. These are all examples of how upward counterfactuals, in which reality is compared to a better alternative, trigger certain specific emotions. Downward counterfactuals, in which reality is compared to a worse alternative, can elicit emotions such as relief or gratitude when one finds out that a situation could have been much worse (Teigen, 1997). With the current research we expected to be able to also add envy to this list of emotions that are being influenced by counterfactual thinking.

Counterfactual thinking appears to mainly serve two important functions (Roese, 1994). The first is that it helps affect regulation, as a realisation that one could have been worse off (called a downward counterfactual) makes one feel

THE COUNTERFACTUAL NATURE OF ENVY

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6) 955

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

better. For example, people who survive a plane crash can describe themselves as lucky, because a salient counterfactual to them compares their state to the unlucky people in the plane who did not survive (Teigen, 1995, 1997).

The second function of counterfactual thinking is that it has a preparative function that helps people to improve their future situation (Epstude & Roese, 2008; Roese, 1994; Zeelenberg, 1999). This learning function mainly applies to upward counterfactuals, comparisons where the situation could have been better than it currently is. For example, people experience regret if they realise that their situation would have been better if only they had made a different choice (Zeelenberg et al., 1998). The more salient this counterfactual is, the stronger the experienced regret is. Experi- encing regret over past mistakes helps people to learn and prevent these mistakes in the future and thus be better prepared in future situations. Envy also helps to prepare a person to take action to improve one’s relative position in the social hierarchy (Smith & Kim, 2007; Van de Ven et al., 2009). If counterfactual thinking indeed leads to more intense envy, this also fits this preparative function as it helps to prepare a person better to deal with that situation.

Why we expect counterfactual thinking to be related to envy

For envy the counterfactual thought implies a social comparison in which one contrasts one’s own situation to that of the other. In the current research we focus on the strength of the counter- factual thought and relate it to the intensity of envy. We thus examine whether it is the case that the more people think “it could have been me”, the more intense the envy is that they feel. This follows the suggestions made by others that envy and counterfactual thinking are likely to be related (Ben-Ze’ev, 1992; Coricelli & Rustichini, 2010; Elster, 1991).

Envy is inherently a comparative emotion: it arises from comparing one’s own situation to that of a superior other (Smith & Kim, 2007). Indeed, a significant correlation exists between

the dispositional tendency to compare one’s own situation to that of others with dispositional envy (Smith et al., 1999; Zeelenberg & Pieters, 2007). When people recall a situation in which they were envious, they practically always make an explicit comparison to the other (e.g., my friend got a 9 for an exam, while I studied much harder and only received a 7; Van de Ven et al., 2009). Precisely because of this comparative nature, we expected that more counterfactual thinking leads to more intense envy.

Note that counterfactual thinking is often studied by examining the number of counter- factuals people generate when engaging in coun- terfactual thinking. Someone who missed a train by a minute typically generates more thoughts about how that situation could have been different (if only I had not snoozed after my alarm clock sounded, if only that final traffic light had been green, etc.), compared to someone who missed the train by 15 minutes. In the current studies we do not test how many counterfactuals people generate, but how easily someone engages in the specific counterfactual we expected to be associated with envy. With this we aimed to stay closer to the original ideas of Kahneman and colleagues about the link between counterfactuals and emotional amplification. Kahneman and Tversky (1982) indicated that the easier it is to think of a situation, the more likely someone thinks that situation is likely to occur. Kahneman and Miller (1986) refer to this process when explaining the difference in emotional reactions by two men to missing a flight with a small or wide margin. If a person misses the plane by a small margin, it is easier to imagine an alternative situation which then makes the resulting emotional reaction stronger.

The current studies

In the current studies we tested whether stronger counterfactual thoughts are related to the intensity of envy. We predicted that the more someone thinks “it could have been me”, the more they will experience envy. This straightforward relationship (a correlation) is tested in four studies. Note that

VAN DE VEN AND ZEELENBERG

956 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

we think it likely not only that the counterfactual thought often precedes the experience of envy, but also that these thoughts may follow from the experience. Typically, certain cognitive appraisals of the situation trigger certain emotions (Frijda, 1988; Roseman, 1996). At the same time, specific emotions also contain specific thought patterns (Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz, 1994), and the experience of specific emotions can cause us to interpret new situations in line with that emotion (e.g., Lerner & Keltner, 2001). Envy might thus not only be caused by thoughts of “it could have been me” but also give rise to those thoughts (see also Elster, 1991). We will come back to this in the “General Discussion” section.

Besides testing the relationship between coun- terfactual thinking and envy correlationally, we also manipulated closeness to the outcome in Studies 3 and 4. Kahneman and Varey (1990; see also Roese, 1997) stated that the closer people are to obtaining a certain outcome, the more they will engage in counterfactual thinking. We expected that manipulations that make people feel closer to obtaining the desired outcome someone else has, would trigger stronger counterfactual thoughts and thereby also more envy. Finally, in Studies 3 and 4 we also manipulated an antecedent of envy. Domains that are more important to one’s self- view elicit more envy (Salovey & Rodin, 1991). We wanted to explore whether these manipula- tions would not only influence envy but would also influence counterfactual thoughts. Note that across all studies, we report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipula- tions and all measures.

STUDY 1

In Study 1 people autobiographically recalled an envy episode and indicated felt envy and

whether they engaged in counterfactual thinking. We expected that the more they had engaged in counterfactual thinking (the more they had thought “it could have been me”), the more intense their envy would be.

Participants were recruited via Amazon MTurk and received $0.45 for a 4.5-minute survey. We restricted our sample to US-based participants, with a good standing as MTurk workers (>95% acceptance rate). We aimed for 300 participants (95% power to detect a correlation of .20), and got 275 (166 males and 109 females; Mage = 28.19 years, SD = 8.60, range 18–64) who completed it.1

Participants were asked to “Recall a situation in which someone else was better off than you were in a domain that you found to be rather important yourself. For example, someone got a better grade than you, made more money, won a prestigious award, etc.” We asked them to spend a minute or two describing the situation. We explained that some details were necessary so a reader would understand the basic situation. After this, partici- pants responded to two questions regarding the recalled situation. The first question asked for the counterfactual thought: How much did you think “it could have been me”? the second question asked for their envy: Did you feel a little envious of the person who was better off? Both questions were answered on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 6 (very much so).2

On average, the responses (on the 0–6 scale) clearly indicated that participants agreed with the statement that they had generated counterfactual thoughts (M = 4.52, SD = 1.65) and had felt envious (M = 4.73, SD = 1.37) in the recalled situation. We found the predicted relationship between counterfactual thoughts and envy, r(273) = .26, p < .0001. The more participants had thought it could have been me, the more they had also experienced envy.

1 Two participants had not recalled an episode of envy, as they had copied the assignment in the box instead of written down a personal story. There were two pairs of cases that came from the same IP address, and because it could be that someone created two MTurk accounts and filled out the questionnaire twice, we left these participants out of the analyses. We used these exclusion criteria in the other studies as well.

2 We had also added the Social Comparison Orientation (the INCOM, Gibbons & Buunk, 1999) for exploratory

reasons. Unfortunately, we made a mistake with the scale labelling that prevented us from using the scale.

THE COUNTERFACTUAL NATURE OF ENVY

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6) 957

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

STUDY 2

Study 2 resembled Study 1 and used the same recall procedure. The main difference is that we now used multi-item, reliable and validated scales to measure counterfactual thinking (Counterfactual Thinking for Negative Events Scale, CTNES; Rye, Cahoon, Ali, & Daftary, 2008) and envy (Dispositional Envy Scale, DES; Smith et al., 1999). Furthermore, we added a three-item meas- ure of envy for the experienced envy during the recalled episode. The CTNES contains four sub- scales, three of which are about upward counter- factual thinking (how much better things could have been) and one about downward counter- factual thinking (how much worse things could have been). The upward scales further distinguish between counterfactuals about what one did one- self, what another person did, or they do not refer to people. We predicted that the three upward counterfactual scales would be related to both the amount of envy felt in the specific situation and to dispositional envy. We thus expected that engaging more in counterfactual thinking for a negative event would not only lead to more envy in that event, but it would also be related to having a higher dispositional tendency to experience envy.

We again aimed for 300 participants (95% power for detecting a .20 correlation), recruited via Amazon MTurk (US-based participants with a >95% acceptance rate) and received $0.40 for a 4- to 5-minute survey. We got 311 (176 males, 134 females, 1 missing value; Mage = 31.82 years, SD = 10.36, range 18–73) who completed it.

Participants were again asked to recall a situ- ation in which someone else was better off than they were in a domain rather important to them. After this, they received the CTNES, our three- item envy scale, and the DES. The CTNES contains four subscales that have four items each. Each item is a statement to which participants indicate how often they feel or think that way when thinking back about a negative event they had just described (on a scale from 1 never to 5 very often). The four subscales are Non-Referent Upward (e.g., I think about how much better things could have been), Self-Referent Upward

(e.g., I think about how much better things could have been if I had acted differently), Other- Referent Upward (e.g., If only other people [or another person] would have acted differently, this situation would have never happened) and Non- Referent Downward (e.g., I think about how much worse things could have been). The Situ- ational Envy scale consisted of three items related to the experienced envy in the recalled situation (Did you feel a little envious of the person who was better off? Did you feel jealous of the person who was better off? and Did you feel frustrated that the other was better off than you were? 0 = not at all; 6 = very much so). Finally, dispositional envy was measured with the eight items of the scale (e.g., I feel envy every day, 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).

Table 1 contains the reliability, mean and standard deviation for each construct we meas- ured, as well as the correlation between them. We found that the more participants engaged in upward counterfactual thinking regarding the recalled event, the more they had experienced envy. We found this for all three subscales that measured upward counterfactual thinking: so regardless of whether people had counterfactual thoughts that the situation would have been better for them if they had done something differently, if the other had done something differently, or without specifying others, the more they had these counterfactual thoughts the more they experienced envy. The same pattern was found for the dispositional measure of envy. As we had also expected, the tendency to make downward coun- terfactuals (thinking about that things could have been worse) was unrelated to both situational and dispositional envy. To summarise, we replicated the relationship between counterfactual thinking and envy of Study 1, with different measures.

STUDY 3

In Study 3 we again examined the relationship between counterfactual thought and the intensity of envy. This time we asked participants to imagine being in a situation that was likely to

VAN DE VEN AND ZEELENBERG

958 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

elicit envy and indicate what they would think and feel in that situation. We also added a counter- factual closeness manipulation (see Roese, 1997). We predicted that the closer the participants had been to the outcome, the more they would have counterfactual thoughts, and the more intense their envy would be.

Furthermore, we manipulated the domain in which the target other was better off, by making it more (or less) important to the participant com- pared to the control condition. As we discussed in the Introduction, more important domains and more similarity to the envied person typically lead to more intense envy, and we wanted to explore whether these factors would also affect the extent to which people entertained the counterfactual thought “it could have been me”.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited via Amazon MTurk and they received $0.15 for a 1.5-minute survey. We aimed for 100 participants per condition (as we were unsure how large expected effects of the manipulations were) and eventually had 505 participants in our 5 conditions (319 males and 186 females; Mage = 29.64 years, SD = 9.49, range 18–71). Although we set our survey program to assign participants randomly to the conditions, for unknown reasons we ended up with an unequal

distribution, with n = 85–127 per condition. There were two missing values on the counterfactual

question and five on the envy question.

Control condition

In the control condition (n = 98), participants were

asked to imagine being in the following situation:

Imagine that you have been working at a job as a junior sales representative for two years. You are enjoying your work, but you also hope that within the next year or so you can make a promotion to senior sales representative. This will make your job even more challenging, gives you more responsibility, and you will make more money as well.

In your organization, once every half a year or so a junior sales representative is being promoted to a senior function. So, if someone gets a promo- tion, it takes a while before the next promotion will be possible again.

The current buzz at work is that for the next upcoming promotion, it might be you or your colleague who is likely to be promoted. Your colleague works at the organization about equally long as you do, and your sales performance is similar as well.

If the manager indeed needs to choose between the two of you, there does not seem to be a strong reason to favor one over the other.

When the manager announces the promotion, it appears that the other has been chosen and that you missed this chance.

Table 1. Descriptives and correlations of the Counterfactual Thinking for Negative Events Scale and envy measures in Study 2

Descriptives Correlations

CTNES α M (SD) C2 C3 C4 E1 E2

C1 Non-Referent Upward .84 2.97 (1.00) .67** .23** .07 .49** .46** C2 Self-Referent Upward .83 2.47 (1.04) .32** .20** .31** .44** C3 Other-Referent Upward .90 2.21 (1.17) .08 .18* .24** C4 Non-Referent Downward .89 2.56 (1.16) −.01 .05

Envy E1 Situational Envy .91 4.18 (1.54) .40** E2 Dispositional Envy .87 2.27 (0.97)

Note: CTNES and Dispositional Envy scales from 1 to 5, Situational Envy from 0 to 6. *p < .01, **p < .001.

THE COUNTERFACTUAL NATURE OF ENVY

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6) 959

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

After participants read this scenario, they indi- cated how much they would have thought “it could have been me” in that situation (0 = not at all; 10 = very much so). Next, they indicated (on the same scale) if they would have felt “a little jealous”. We asked for jealousy instead of envy, because in the colloquial use of the English language people typically use the word jealous to refer to the experience of envy (Smith, Kim, & Parrott, 1988). We wanted to see whether we also find the correlation with counterfactual thinking when assessing envy this way.”3

In addition to the control condition, there were four conditions that examined the effects of closeness to the outcome (close vs. far) and domain importance (more vs. less). Note that this was not a full-factorial design, as we were not interested in interactions between these two manipulations. We expected that a manipulation that brought the participant closer to obtaining the outcome the other person had would increase counterfactual thinking (and thus envy) compared to the control condition, while a manipulation that made the participant farther away from the out- come would reduce counterfactual thinking (and thus envy). For the manipulation of domain importance we not only expected that in more important domains (compared to the control condition) participants would feel more envy but also engage in counterfactual thinking more. If the domain was made less important, we expected less envy and counterfactual thinking than in the control condition. The conditions are described below.

Closeness

Two conditions were created that manipulated how close the participant was to the outcome. Compared to the control condition, we added one

sentence after the one that read that there was no strong reason to favour the participant or the other. In the closer to outcome condition (n = 127) we added the sentence “They then typically choose the person who works there longest, which is you”. In the farther from outcome condition (n = 108) we added “They then typically choose the person who works their longest, which is the other”.

Domain importance

Two conditions were created that manipulated how important the domain was to the participant. Compared to the control condition, we added two sentences after the part that described that their performance was similar to that of the other. In the domain important condition (n = 85) we added “Of course you hope you will make the promotion, but this time it is of particular importance to you. You need to make extra money to be able to support your family, you need more challenge to really keep liking your job, and due to the recession it is unclear whether there will be room to promote someone again in half a year”. In the domain unimportant condition (n = 87) we added “Of course you hope you will make the promotion, but is not of particular importance to you. You make enough money to support your family, you like your job, and there will be another chance for a promotion in half a year”.

Results

First, across conditions participants clearly engaged in counterfactual thinking (M = 7.74, SD = 2.19) and they would feel jealous towards the person who received the promotion (M = 6.57, SD = 2.57). We replicated the finding of Studies 1 and 2 and found a strong association between

3 For exploratory reasons, we had also added questions on whether participants had thought “I wish I had received the

promotion”, had felt “a little frustrated” and had felt “happy for the other”. Furthermore, in Studies 3 and 4 we had added a manipulation of target similarity, which did not influence envy nor counterfactual thinking. We left those out of this manuscript. Note that also within those conditions, counterfactual thinking correlated with envy, Study 3 r(175) = .43, p < .0001, Study 4 r(182) = .29, p < .0001. Finally, Study 4 also contained a manipulation check for perceived similarity to the target other. The descriptive statistics of these variables and manipulations that were left out of this manuscript can be found in Appendix A.

VAN DE VEN AND ZEELENBERG

960 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

counterfactual thinking and felt envy across all conditions, r(498) = .46, p < .0001. Table 2 contains the means and standard deviations for these dependent variables per condition. For both counterfactual thinking, F(4, 495) = 25.59, p < .0001, g2p ¼ .17, and for envy, F(4, 495) = 9.43, p < .0001, g2p ¼ .07, there were clear differences between conditions. Below we compare the effects of the manipulations closeness to the outcome and domain importance (compared to the control condition) separately.

Closeness

As Table 2 shows, there was a clear effect of the manipulation of closeness to the outcome on the counterfactual thought “it could have been me”, F(2, 328) = 42.11, p < .0001, g2p ¼ :20. Examina- tion of the means (all post hoc tests in this manuscript are LSD tests) revealed that all three conditions differ significantly from each other (ps ≤ .016), and confirmed that those who were farther away from obtaining the outcome for themselves engaged in counterfactual thinking the least, while those who were closer to the outcome engaged in counterfactual thinking the most.

A similar effect was found for felt envy, F(2, 327) = 9.62, p < .0001, g2p ¼ :06. Post hoc analyses confirm that also here the partici- pants who were farther away from getting the outcome themselves were least envious (ps ≤ .022), while those who were closer to obtaining

the outcome experienced the most envy. Note that for this latter comparison the close to outcome condition compared to the control con- dition was marginally significant at p =.059. The general pattern is thus clear that the closer someone was to an outcome that another person obtained, the more feelings of envy arose.

We predicted that being closer to an outcome would increase the counterfactual thinking, which would then increase felt envy. To test this we conducted a bootstrapping mediation analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) with 10,000 samples and bias-corrected intervals. Figure 1 displays a summary of the results. The closeness manipula- tion (far from outcome condition coded as 0, close to outcome as 1) had an effect on the proposed mediator counterfactual thoughts, b = 2.47, SE = 0.27, t = 9.25, p < .0001. The effect of the manipulation on envy, b = 1.46, SE = 0.34, t = 4.28, p < .0001, became insignificant, b = 0.32, SE = 0.37, t = 0.85, p = .394, when the effect of the counterfactual thinking on envy, b = 0.46, SE = 0.08, t = 5.86, p < .0001, was taken into account. This indirect (mediating) effect was significant as the 95% confidence interval did not include 0 (CI: 0.72 to 1.66).

Domain importance

Our data confirmed the earlier findings that domain importance is an important antecedent for envy (see Table 2), as the manipulation clearly affected felt envy, F(2, 265) = 9.58, p < .0001, g2p ¼ :07. Participants in the domain unimportant condition felt less envious than those in the control and domain important conditions (ps ≤ .006). Participants in the domain important con- dition felt (marginally significantly, p = .086) more envy than those in the control condition. The general pattern is thus clear that the more important a domain is to a person, the stronger the felt envy will be if another person is better off.

Confirming our ideas, we also found that the manipulation of domain importance affected how much participants engaged in counterfactual thinking, F(2, 267) = 3.91, p < .021, g2p ¼ :02 (see Table 2). Participants in the domain

Table 2. Counterfactual thoughts and envy in Study 3

Dependent variables

Counterfactual Envy

Conditions M (SD) M (SD)

Control 7.95 (2.04) 6.64 (2.36) Close to outcome 8.62 (1.70) 7.29 (2.54) Far from outcome 6.19 (2.42) 5.83 (2.64) Domain important 8.36 (1.68) 7.26 (2.30) Domain unimportant 7.53 (2.11) 5.66 (2.56)

Note: All questions were answered on scales from 0 not at all to

10 very much so.

THE COUNTERFACTUAL NATURE OF ENVY

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6) 961

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

unimportant condition engaged in less counter- factual thinking compared to those in the domain important condition, p = .006. How much parti- cipants in the control condition engaged in counterfactual thinking fell in between these two conditions as we had predicted, but was not significantly different from the domain unimport- ant condition, p = .147, nor the domain important condition, p = .154. The general pattern is clear;

however, the more important a domain is to oneself in which another person is better off, the more a person engaged in counterfactual thinking.

We predicted that a part of the effect of domain importance on envy would be mediated by the increase in counterfactual thoughts. To test this we again conducted a similar bootstrapping mediation analysis as before. Figure 1 displays a summary of the results. The domain importance

Closer to outcome

Envy Domain

important Envy

Counter factual

Counter factual

Study 2 Manipulations of closeness to outcome and domain importance

.06 (.27***)

.51*** .41***

.20** (.31***)

.22** .51***

Closer to outcome

Envy Domain

important Envy

Counter factual

Counter factual

Study 3 Measures of closeness to outcome and domain importance

.01 (.29***)

.65*** .42***

.51*** (.60***)

.43*** .21***

Closer to outcome

Envy Domain

important Envy

Counter factual

Counter factual

Study 3 Manipulations of closeness to outcome and domain importance

-.04 (.07)

.41*** .27***

.34*** (.49***)

.41*** .38***

Figure 1. Mediation analyses testing the indirect effect of closeness to the outcome and domain importance on envy via counterfactual

thinking in Studies 3 and 4.

Note: Mediation with ß-weights. Numbers within brackets refer to the direct effect of the IV on the DV when not controlling for

counterfactual thoughts. All indirect effects are significant at p < .05.

VAN DE VEN AND ZEELENBERG

962 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

manipulation (domain unimportant condition coded as 0, domain important as 1) had an effect on the proposed mediator counterfactual thoughts, b = 0.87, SE = 0.29, t = 2.97, p = .004. The effect of the manipulation on envy, b = 1.60, SE = 0.37, t = 4.29, p < .0001, became less strong, b = 1.02, SE = 0.33, t = 3.12, p = .002, when the effect of the counterfactuals on envy, b = 0.67, SE = 0.08, t = 8.02, p < .0001, was taken into account. This indirect (mediating) effect was significant as the 95% confidence interval did not include 0 (CI: 0.21 to 1.02).

Discussion

We replicated the finding from Study 1 that entertaining the counterfactual thought “it could have been me” was strongly correlated with feelings of envy. Moreover, a manipulation of closeness to the outcome increased both counter- factual thinking and envy. The effect of being closer to obtaining the outcome for oneself on the intensity of envy was mediated by counter- factual thinking. Furthermore, a manipulation known to influence envy (domain importance) did indeed not only influence envy in our study, but we also found that it increased counterfactual thinking. The effect of domain importance on envy was partially mediated by counterfactual thinking.

STUDY 4

The goals of Study 4 were similar to those of Study 3, but instead of using a scenario methodo- logy we used recalled life events (as in Studies 1 and 2). We again manipulated counterfactual closeness and domain importance.

Method

Participants were recruited via Amazon MTurk and received $0.45 for a 4.5-minute survey. We again aimed for 100 participants per condition and eventually had 380 participants for our four

conditions (253 males, 126 females, 1 unknown;

Mage = 28.22 years, SD = 9.51, range 18–66). Participants were asked to remember a situation

in which someone else was better off (as in Study

1). We created four conditions (two sets of two

conditions). Note that this was not a full-factorial

design, as we were not interested in interactions

between these two manipulations. The first was

that we asked participants to recall a situation in

which they felt they were close to obtaining the

better outcome the other had: “Try to recall a situation in which you felt that you had been very

close to getting that better outcome for yourself,

and that you felt that you almost reached it” (close to outcome condition, n = 95) or for which they

felt they had little chance to obtain that outcome

(far from outcome condition, n = 94). A second

manipulation was that we either asked them to

remember an instance in which the domain they

were outperformed was very important to them

(important condition, n = 96) or not very import-

ant to them (unimportant condition, n = 95).

After participants recalled an envy experience,

we first administered manipulation checks. We

asked them to indicate how much they agreed

with the following statements (0 = not at all; 10 =

very much so): “The domain in which the other person was better off was important to me” (domain importance) and “I felt I had been close to obtaining the better outcome for myself” (closeness). After this we asked for counterfactuals

(“How much did you think it could have been me?”) and envy (“I felt a little envious of the other”) as in Study 1.

Results

We analyzed the data in two ways. First, we

collapsed across conditions and tested the effects

of the measures that dealt with the situational

circumstances of the recalled episode (closeness to

the outcome and domain importance) on the

counterfactual thoughts and envy. Second, we

tested the separate effects of the two manipula-

tions on counterfactuals and envy.

THE COUNTERFACTUAL NATURE OF ENVY

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6) 963

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

Effects across conditions

The mean responses to the variables across the four conditions and the correlations between these variables can be found in Table 3. Replicating the findings of the earlier studies, the more partici- pants entertained the counterfactual thought “it could have been me”, the more they experienced envy, r(378) = .43, p < .0001. Furthermore, the correlations revealed that the measures of how close one was to obtaining the outcome oneself and the importance of the domain in which the other were better off were significantly associated with the counterfactual thought of “it could have been me” and the experienced envy.

We replicated the mediation we had found in Study 3 of the effect of closeness to the outcome and domain importance on envy via counterfactual thinking using a similar method. Figure 1 contains a graphical display of these analyses. We again found that the closer a person felt to obtaining the outcome for oneself, the more they engaged in

counterfactual thinking (the proposed mediator), b = 0.67, SE = 0.04, t = 16.81, p < .0001. The effect of closeness to the outcome on envy, b = 0.27, SE = 0.05, t = 5.79, p < .0001, disappeared, b = 0.01, SE = 0.06, t = 0.13, p = .897, when the effect of the counterfactuals on envy, b = 0.39, SE = 0.06, t = 6.90, p < .0001, was taken into account. This indirect (mediating) effect was significant as the 95% confidence interval did not include 0 (CI: 0.19 to 0.34).

For domain importance, a more important domain of social comparison led to more counter- factual thinking (the proposed mediator), b = 0.44, SE = 0.05, t = 9.21, p < .0001. The effect of domain importance on envy, b = 0.58, SE = 0.04, t = 14.68, p < .0001, became less strong, b = 0.49, SE = 0.04, t = 11.61, p < .0001, when the effect of the counterfactuals on envy, b = 0.19, SE = 0.04, t = 4.76, p < .0001, was taken into account. This indirect (mediating) effect was significant as the 95% confidence interval did not include 0 (CI: 0.05 to 0.14). Note that a sizeable effect of domain importance on envy did remain.

Effects of the manipulations

The analyses reported so far in Study 4 dealt with the relationship between variables and had col- lapsed the results across all the conditions. In the subsequent section we discuss the results for each of the two manipulations, closeness to the out- come and domain importance. Means and stand- ard deviations for all variables per condition are presented in Table 4.

Table 3. Mean responses and correlations across all conditions in Study 4

Correlations

M (SD) 2 3 4

1 Close to outcome 3.51 (1.90) .36 .65 .29 2 Important 3.75 (1.87) .43 .60 3 Counterfactual 3.79 (1.94) .43 4 Envy 4.09 (1.79)

Note: N = 380. Dependent variables were assessed on a scale from

0 not at all to 6 very much so. All correlations p < .0001.

Table 4. Mean responses per condition in Study 4

Dependent variables

Close to outcome Important Counterfactual Envy

Manipulations M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Close to outcome 4.69b (1.35) 4.05 (1.72) 4.84b (1.39) 4.61 (1.40) Far from outcome 2.72a (1.86) 4.14 (1.52) 3.37a (1.83) 4.40 (1.63) Domain important 3.97

b (1.74) 4.77

b (1.35) 4.29

b (1.82) 4.61

b (1.45)

Domain unimportant 2.63a (1.81) 2.03a (1.66) 2.63a (1.92) 2.72a (1.92)

Note: Responses were given on scales from 0 = not at all to 6 = very much so. Means with a different superscript differ for that variable and that

manipulation at p < .05.

VAN DE VEN AND ZEELENBERG

964 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

Closeness to the outcome. As Table 4 shows, the manipulation of closeness influenced how close people felt to the outcome, t(187) = 8.35, p < .0001, d = 1.21. Importantly, participants who were asked to recall a situation in which they had been close to obtaining the outcome that the other person had (compared to having been quite far from the outcome themselves), had more thoughts of “it could have been me”, t(187) = 6.23, p < .0001, d = 0.90. There was, however, this time no significant effect of this manipulation on envy, t(187) = 0.93, p = .352, d = 0.14.

Note that although there was no significant effect of this manipulation on envy, there can still be an indirect effect. If the independent variable influences a mediator variable and that mediator variable influences a third variable, there is an indirect effect regardless of whether the path of the independent variable to the third variable itself is significant (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). In the mediation analysis we again found that the closer a person felt to obtaining the outcome for oneself, the more they engaged in counterfactual thinking (the proposed mediator), b = 1.47, SE = 0.24, t = 6.22, p < .0001. The non-significant effect of closeness to the outcome on envy, b = 0.21, SE = 0.22, t = 0.94, p = .352, became, b = −0.13, SE = 0.24, t = 0.54, p = .589, when the effect of the counterfactuals on envy, b = 0.23, SE = 0.07, t = 3.42, p = .0008, was taken into account. Although there was thus not a significant effect of the manipulation of closeness to the outcome on envy in this study, there was an indirect (mediating) effect via counterfactuals as the 95% confidence interval did not include 0 (CI: 0.12 to 0.63). The mediation is graphically depicted in Figure 1.

Domain importance. As Table 4 shows, the manipulation of domain importance influenced the manipulation check for domain importance, t(189) = 12.52, p < .0001, d = 1.81. Note that it also had an unexpected effect on how close participants had felt being to the outcome, t(189) = 5.21, p < .0001, d = 0.76. As expected, in more important domains participants had experienced more envy than in unimportant domains, t(189) = 7.72,

p < .0001, d = 1.11, and they had also thought more “it could have been me”, t(189) = 6.14, p < .0001, d = 0.89. The manipulation of domain importance thus influenced both envy and counterfactual thoughts, which we had also found in Study 3.

In the mediation analysis we again found that a manipulation that made the domain of comparison in which the other was better off more important increased counterfactual thinking (the proposed mediator), b = 1.66, SE = 0.27, t = 6.14, p < .0001. The effect of domain importance on envy, b = 1.90, SE = 0.25, t = 7.72, p < .0001, became less strong, b = 1.30, SE = 0.25, t = 5.24, p < .0001, when the effect of the counterfactuals on envy, b = 0.36, SE = 0.06, t = 5.92, p < .0001, was taken into account. The indirect effect confirms that this partial mediation is significant as the 95% confidence interval did not include 0 (CI: 0.35 to 0.94). The mediation is graphically depicted in Figure 1.

Discussion

We again replicated the correlation between the counterfactual thought “it could have been me” and felt envy across all conditions. Furthermore, we also replicated the finding of Study 3 that the percep- tion of being close to the outcome that the envied person had obtained influenced envy, and this effect was mediated by counterfactual thoughts. The manipulation for the closeness to the outcome also led to more counterfactual thoughts, but not directly to significantly more envy. However, there was still an indirect effect (and thus a mediation) of the manipulation on envy via counterfactual thoughts. These results are consistent the idea that counterfactual thinking increases the intensity of envy. For both the manipulation and the measure of domain importance, we again found that more important domains made people more envious and made them think the counterfactual thought “it could have been me” more.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Based on Frijda’s (1988) Law of Compara‐ tive Feeling and earlier theorising about envy

THE COUNTERFACTUAL NATURE OF ENVY

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6) 965

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

(Ben-Ze’ev, 1992; Coricelli & Rustichini, 2010; Elster, 1991), we predicted that the more people would think “it could have been me”, the more they would be envious. In four studies we found that counterfactual thinking is related to the intensity of envy. A meta-analysis across all correlations between counterfactual thinking and envy in our studies showed that the correlation between coun- terfactual thinking and envy across the studies was r = .40, with a 95%CI of .36 to .45.

4

Furthermore, in Study 3 we found that a manipulation known to influence counterfactual thoughts (being closer to the desired outcome) influenced envy, and this effect was mediated by counterfactual thoughts. Although we did not find a significant direct effect of a similar manipulation of closeness to the outcome on envy in Study 4, we did find the same indirect effect that the manip- ulation that made participants feel that closer to the outcome that the envied person had increased counterfactual thinking, which in turn increased the intensity of envy. Based on these findings, we thus conclude the counterfactual thought “it could have been me” is clearly associated with the experience of envy.

In our view, the relationship between envy and counterfactual thinking resembles the situation of regret, where the cognitive aspects of counter- factual thinking and the emotional experience of regret are intertwined (Zeelenberg et al., 1998). The thought “it could have been me” is likely to be both an appraisal of a situation that triggers feelings of envy, and a consequence from the experience of envy that helps people focus on ways to improve (see also Elster, 1991). Counterfactual thinking helps people to learn and improve their decisions in future situations (Markman, Gavanski, Sherman, & McMullen, 1993; Roese, 1994). Coricelli and Rustichini (2010) indeed argue that envy helps people to adapt and learn

from prior decisions. To be able to fulfil this learning goal effectively, it would be logical if envy also elicits counterfactual thoughts to help to determine where one can improve to obtain the desired outcomes for oneself. Although we think an effect of envy on counterfactual thinking is likely to exist, our current data seem more supportive of the counterfactual to envy link then for the envy to counterfactual link. In our Studies 3 and 4 we found mediation of the effect of being close to an outcome on envy via counterfactual thinking. If we test these analyses with envy as the mediator and counterfactual thinking as the dependent variable, the indirect mediating effect is significantly smaller in all three analyses (but it is significant in two of the three tests). Details on these analyses can be found in Appendix B.

Consequences for our understanding of envy

The current research helps to make novel predic- tions about when envy is likely to be more intense. If counterfactual thinking increases the intensity of envy, other factors that increase counterfactual thinking are likely to lead to more envy as well. In general, the easier it is to come up with alternative views of how the situation could have ended up (the more “mutable” the situation is), the more people engage in counterfactual thinking (Kahneman & Miller, 1986). Based on this idea, we will make some novel prediction on when envy is likely to be more intense.

Control over the situation

Counterfactual thinking is stronger in situations in which people feel they have control over the situation (Markman, Gavanski, Sherman, & McMullen, 1995; Roese, 1997). If people feel a situation could not have been changed by oneself,

4 We conducted the meta-analysis with the metagen package in the statistical software R. For Studies 1, 3 and 4 we used

the correlation reported in that study. In Study 2 we had three measures of counterfactual thinking that we had expected to be related to envy (the upward counterfactual thinking scales). For this meta-analysis we took the average of the three upward counterfactual scales and correlated that average with envy, r(308) = .32, p < .0001. We also added the two correlations from the additional conditions reported in Footnote 3, which gave us 6 correlations with a total sample size of 1826 participants.

VAN DE VEN AND ZEELENBERG

966 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

counterfactual thinking does not occur as much. For

example, imagine a lottery in which either ticket A

or ticket B will win. In one condition Player 1 gets

to choose between two tickets and Player 2 receives

the unchosen ticket. In another condition Player 1

is randomly assigned a ticket as well. The perceived

control for Player 1 in the first condition will be

higher than in the second condition, which we

would thus predict to increase the intensity of envy

if Player 2 would win the lottery.

Envy and narcissism

The current findings also fit with recent work on

the link between envy and narcissism. Narcissism

and envy are often linked and one of the DSM-

IV-TR criteria for diagnosing narcissism is actu-

ally whether a person is often envious (American

Psychiatric Association, 2000). An important

distinction in types of narcissism is differentiating

between grandiose and vulnerable narcissists. Both

types have a high need to be admired and lack

empathy, but grandiose narcissists have a very high

self-confidence while vulnerable narcissists actually

have a low self-esteem (Stoessel, 2007). Recent

research found that only the vulnerable narcissists

are more likely to be envious (Krizan & Johar,

2012). A possible reason for this is that grandiose

narcissists see no reason to think “it could have been me” if they are confronted with someone who is better off than them, as a grandiose

narcissist is likely to feel that he is better anyway

and would thus not generate upward counter-

factuals. Vulnerable narcissists, however, want to

be admired, but because of their low self-esteem

they need to find confirmation that they are

actually in a position that elicits admiration in

others. This likely makes them focus on their

relative standing more than other people do, and

thus more prone to thoughts like “it could have been me” and therefore envy. This prediction also fits with the idea that people with low self-esteem

generally engage more in counterfactual thinking

(Roese & Olson, 1993).

CONCLUSION

We empirically explored the relationship between

counterfactual thinking and envy. Across four

studies we find that the more someone thinks “it could have been me” when another person is better off, the more intense the associated envy is. The

clear and consistent relationship helps to identify

novel predictions regarding the experience of envy.

Manuscript received 29 November 2013

Revised manuscript received 2 July 2014

Manuscript accepted 19 August 2014

First published online 15 September 2014

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Aristotle. (350BC/1954). The rhetoric and the poetics of Aristotle (W. R. Roberts, Trans.). New York, NY: Modern Library.

Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1992). Envy and inequality. The Journal of Philosophy, 89, 551–581. doi:10.2307/2941056

Coricelli, G., & Rustichini, A. (2010). Counterfactual thinking and emotions: Regret and envy learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 241–247. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0159

Elster, J. (1991). Envy in social life. In R. J. Zeckhauser (Ed.), Strategy and choice (pp. 49–82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Epstude, K., & Roese, N. J. (2008). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 168–192. doi:10.1177/ 1088868308316091

Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43, 349–358. doi:10.1037/0003-066X. 43.5.349

Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: The development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 129–142. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.129

Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93. 2.136

THE COUNTERFACTUAL NATURE OF ENVY

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6) 967

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201–208). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kahneman, D., & Varey, C. A. (1990). Propensities and counterfactuals: The loser that almost won. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1101–1110. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1101

Krizan, Z., & Johar, O. (2012). Envy divides the two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 80, 1415– 1451. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00767.x

Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83

Mandel, D. (2003). Counterfactuals, emotions, and context. Cognition & Emotion, 17(1), 139–159. doi:10.1080/02699930302275

Mandel, D. R., & Dhami, M. K. (2005). “What I did” versus “What I might have done”: Effect of factual and counterfactual thinking on blame, guilt, and shame in prisoners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 637–645. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004. 08.009

Markman, K. D., Gavanski, I., Sherman, S. J., & McMullen, M. N. (1993). The mental simulation of better and worse possible worlds. Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology, 29(1), 87–109. doi:10.1006/ jesp.1993.1005

Markman, K. D., Gavanski, I., Sherman, S. J., & McMullen, M. N. (1995). The impact of perceived control on the imagination of better and worse possible worlds. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 21, 588–595. doi:10.1177/0146167295216005

Medvec, V. H., Madey, S. F., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When less is more. Counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among Olympic medalists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 603–610. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.603

Niedenthal, P. M., Tangney, J. P., & Gavanski, I. (1994). “If only I weren’t” versus “if only I hadn’t”: Distinguishing shame and guilt in counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 585–595. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.585

Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 906–920. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.906

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Beha- vior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/ BRM.40.3.879

Roese, N. J. (1994). The functional basis of counter- factual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 805–818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66. 5.805

Roese, N. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psycholo- gical Bulletin, 121(1), 133–148. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.121.1.133

Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (1993). Self-esteem and counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 199–206. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.65.1.199

Roseman, I. J. (1996). Appraisal determinants of emotions: Constructing a more accurate and com- prehensive theory. Cognition and Emotion, 10, 241– 278. doi:10.1080/026999396380240

Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 206–221. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67. 2.206

Rye, M. S., Cahoon, M. B., Ali, R. S., & Daftary, T. (2008). Development and validation of the counter- factual thinking for negative events scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 261–269. doi:10.1080/ 00223890701884996

Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1991). Provoking jealousy and envy: Domain relevance and self-esteem threat. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 395– 413. doi:10.1521/jscp.1991.10.4.395

Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. (2004). Comparing lots before and after: Promotion rejectees’ invidious reactions to promotees. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94(1), 33–47. doi:10.1016/ j.obhdp.2004.01.001

Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 46–64. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.46

Smith, R. H., Kim, S. H., & Parrott, W. G. (1988). Envy and jealousy: Semantic problems and experi- ential distinctions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 401–409. doi:10.1177/01461672881 42017

Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Diener, E. F., Hoyle, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (1999). Dispositional envy.

VAN DE VEN AND ZEELENBERG

968 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1007– 1020. doi:10.1177/01461672992511008

Stoessel, B. J. (2007). Facets of the self in grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: Implicit self-esteem, explicit self-

esteem, and shame (Electronic Doctoral Dissertations for UMass Amherst. Paper AAI3275751). http:// scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3275751

Teigen, K. H. (1995). How good is good luck? The role of counterfactual thinking in the perception of lucky and unlucky events. European Journal of Social Psy- chology, 25, 281–302. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250304

Teigen, K. H. (1997). Luck, envy, and gratitude: It could have been different. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 313–323. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00041

Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2009). Leveling up and down: The experiences of benign and malicious envy. Emotion, 9, 419–429. doi:10. 1037/a0015669

Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2011). Why envy outperforms admiration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 784–795. doi:10.1177/ 0146167211400421

Van Dijk, E., & Zeelenberg, M. (2005). On the psychology of ‘if only’: Regret and the comparison between factual and counterfactual outcomes. Organ- izational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 152–160. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.04.001

Zeelenberg, M. (1999). The use of crying over spilled milk: A note on the rationality and functionality of regret. Philosophical Psychology, 13, 326–340.

Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). A theory of regret regulation 1.0. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(1), 3–18. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1701_3

Zeelenberg, M., Van Dijk, W. W., Van der Pligt, J., Manstead, A. S. R., Van Empelen, P., & Reinder- man, D. (1998). Emotional reactions to the out- comes of decision: The role of counterfactual thought in the experience of regret. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(2), 117– 141. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2784

APPENDIX A. RESULTS ON MANIPULATIONS AND VARIABLES ADDED FOR EXPLORATORY PURPOSES

STUDY 3

We had also manipulated how similar the target person was

to the participant (by varying gender of the target person).

Compared to baseline (in which gender was not specified), we

intended to create situations in which the superior other was of

the other gender (creating more dissimilarity) or of the same

gender (creating more similarity). Specifically, to create (dis)

similarity we added gender information by either describing the

other as Mark (n = 91) or Mary (n = 86). We later recoded these

manipulations to indicate whether participants read about

someone with the same gender (similar condition, n = 75; 48

male, 27 female) or of the other gender (dissimilar condition,

n = 102; 59 male, 43 female).

First, also in these two conditions we found the correlation

between counterfactual thinking and felt envy, r(175) = .43,

p < .0001. Second, the manipulation of target similarity (less

similar/control/more similar), did not affect counterfactual

thinking or envy, Fs(2, 272) ≤ 0.17, ps ≥ .842, g2ps ≤ .01 (counterfactual thinking Mlesssimilar = 7.82, SD = 2.18,

Mcontrol = 7.95, SD = 2.04; Mmoresimilar = 8.00, SD = 2.05;

envy Mlesssimilar = 6.57, SD = 2.18, Mcontrol = 6.64, SD = 2.36;

Mmoresimilar = 6.56, SD = 2.43).

Furthermore, we had added three questions for which we

wanted to explore the effect of the manipulation on these

variables. These were measures for Desire (I wish I had received

the promotion), Frustration (I would feel a little frustrated), and

Happy for Other (I would feel happy for the other). The means

and standard deviations per condition on these measures can

be found in Table A1. For both desire, F(6, 674) = 16.81,

p < .0001, g2p ¼ :13, and frustration, F(6, 673) = 17.11, p < .0001, g2p ¼ :13, there were significant effects of the manipulations. For being happy for the other there was no

effect of the manipulations, F(6, 669) = 0.96, p = .454,

g2p ¼ :01. For details of which conditions differ from each other, see also Table A1.

STUDY 4

Although we had not found an effect of how similar one was to

the target person in Study 3, we added this manipulation in

Study 4 as well. The manipulation was that we asked

participants to either recall someone who was better off than

them who was initially similar to them: “Try to recall a situation in which the person who you describe was rather similar

compared to you, before (s)he became better off. For example,

the person had a similar background, was from the same place

as you are, had a similar educational background, etc.” (similar

other condition, n = 94) or someone who was initially not very

similar to them (dissimilar other condition, n = 90). As a

manipulation check, we had included the question “Before the

other was better off, we were rather similar”, on the same scale as the other questions (0 = not at all; 10 = very much so). Also

within these two conditions, we again found the correlation

between counterfactual thinking and envy, r(182) = .29,

p < .0001. As Table A2 shows, the manipulation of similarity

to the target person only influenced the manipulation check

of similarity, but not any of the other variables. The measure of

THE COUNTERFACTUAL NATURE OF ENVY

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6) 969

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

similarity did not differ significantly for the manipulations of

domain importance and closeness to the outcome.

APPENDIX B. TESTS OF MEDIATION OF EFFECT OF CLOSENESS TO THE OUTCOME ON COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING VIA ENVY

STUDY 3: MANIPULATION OF CLOSENESS

The effect of the closeness manipulation influenced envy via

counterfactual thinking. A test of mediation in the other

direction (the effect of the manipulation on counterfactuals via

envy), revealed a significant indirect effect. The initial effect of

the manipulation of closeness to the outcome on counterfactual

thoughts, b = 1.23, SE = 0.13, t = 9.11, p < .0001, becomes less

strong, b = 1.01, SE = 0.13, t = 7.83, p < .0001, when the effect

of envy was taken into account. The indirect effect (CI: 0.10 to

0.37) was clearly less strong compared to the mediating effect

of counterfactual thinking on envy (CI of the indirect effect was

0.36 to 0.77).

STUDY 4: MEASURE OF CLOSENESS

The effect of the measure of perceived closeness to the outcome

influenced envy via counterfactual thinking. Testing the

mediation in the other direction (the effect of the manipulation

on counterfactuals via envy), the analyses revealed a significant

indirect effect. The initial effect of the measure of closeness on

counterfactual thoughts, b = 0.67, SE = 0.04, t = 16.81,

p < .0001, became less strong, b = 0.59, SE = 0.04, t = 15.11,

p < .0001, when the effect of envy was taken into account.

The indirect effect (CI: 0.04 to 0.12) was clearly less strong

compared to the mediating effect of counterfactual thinking on

envy (CI of the indirect effect was 0.18 to 0.34).

Table A2. Effects of similarity manipulation in Study 4

Condition

Less similar More similar Statistics

M (SD) M (SD) t(182) p d

Counterfactual 3.80 (1.96) 3.95 (1.74) 0.54 .591 0.08 Envy 4.51 (1.55) 4.10 (1.59) 1.80 .074 0.27 Similarity 2.58 (1.85) 4.60 (1.42) 8.32 <.001 1.23 Domain importance 3.81 (1.79) 3.84 (1.49) 0.12 .904 0.02 Closeness to the outcome 3.34 (1.91) 3.41 (1.71) 0.26 .792 0.04

Table A1. Desire, frustration and being happy for the other per condition in Study 3

Dependent variables

Desire Frustration Happy for other

Conditions M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Control 8.68b (1.79) 6.84b (2.46) 5.75 (2.29) Closer to outcome 9.16

ab (1.26) 7.94

a (2.25) 5.16 (2.30)

Farther from outcome 8.14c (2.16) 5.36c (2.66) 5.70 (2.49) Domain more important 9.27a (1.41) 7.75a (2.30) 5.29 (2.57) Domain less important 6.92

d (2.58) 5.35

c (2.76) 5.67 (2.60)

Other more similar 8.65bc (2.04) 6.77b (2.71) 5.30 (2.67) Other less similar 8.82ab (1.70) 6.82b (2.44) 5.60 (2.40)

Note: All questions were answered on scales from 0 = not at all to 10 = very much so. Means with a different superscript differ at p < .05, tested

with LSD post hoc tests.

VAN DE VEN AND ZEELENBERG

970 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15

STUDY 4: MANIPULATION OF CLOSENESS

The effect of the closeness manipulation influenced envy via

counterfactual thinking. Testing the mediation in the other

direction (the effect of the manipulation on counterfactual

thought via envy), the analyses revealed no significant

indirect effect (CI: −0.05 to 0.21). There was mediation of the closeness manipulation via counterfactual thinking on

envy (of which the CI of the indirect effect was 0.12

to 0.63).

THE COUNTERFACTUAL NATURE OF ENVY

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015, 29 (6) 971

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

F lo

ri da

I nt

er na

ti on

al U

ni ve

rs it

y] a

t 07

:1 3

04 S

ep te

m be

r 20

15