Please wait a minute...
   2011, Vol. 43 Issue (03) : 274-282     DOI:
|
The Differences of Individuals Having Different Regulatory Modes on Counterfactual Thinking: Evidence from An ERP Study
YUE Ling-Yun;FENG Ting-Yong;LI Sen-Sen;LI Guang-Pu;LI Hong
(Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality of Ministry of Education (SWU);
School of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China)
Download: PDF(469 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  Counterfactual thinking occurs when an individual experiences thoughts that ignore what has happened in the past, and generates a hypothesis which comparing “what is” with “what might have been”. It is the pop problem in the field of decision-making. Most previous studies focused on topics like which factors influenced the production of counterfactual thinking or different types of counterfactual thinking of different people. Few of them studied different degree of counterfactual thinking generated by different people. Until 2008, Pierro et al. used scenario approach and found that people with different regulatory mode had different degrees in counterfactual thinking and regret experience. Comparing with locomotion, assessment usually produced greater counterfactual thinking and experienced greater regret. Although behavioral studies on counterfactual thinking have accumulated some valuable results, its neural mechanism remains to be deep explored. In 2010, FRN (Feedback Related Negativity) and P300 were found to be sensitive components of counterfactual thinking. On the basis of studies forgoing, we deemed to investigate the differences of assessment and locomotion on counterfactual thinking and the evidence on neurophysiological activity. It is hoped that there would be some of the difference between the two groups, which would be reflected in the amplitude of FRN and P300.
In the present study, scales of Regulatory Mode were used to test 375 students and finally 32 participants were picked and divided into two groups (Assessment and Locomotion). The ERP technique was applied in a simple gambling task to test the neurophysiological activity. Participants were told to earn the money as more as possible, whereas the feedback of each trail was randomly presented.
The results were analyzed by Repeated Measure ANOVA. Behavioral results showed that: higher assessment significantly produced greater counterfactual thinking than higher locomotion; EEG results indicated that: the main effect of group was significant in both FRN and P300, namely the amplitude of assessment was greater than locomotion.
In short, different regulatory modes did produce different counterfactual thinking, which were reflected in FRN and P300. Comparing with locomotion, assessment tended to produce greater counterfactual thinking and have more intense emotional experience. After understanding the differences between assessment and locomotion, the two groups of people can use the merits while avoid the defects of themselves, so as to make the right decision and have a happier mood comparatively.
Keywords Counterfactual Thinking      Regulatory Mode      ERP      FRN      P300     
Corresponding Authors: LI Hong   
Issue Date: 30 March 2011
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
YUE Ling-Yun
FENG Ting-Yong
LI Sen-Sen
LI Guang-Pu
LI Hong
Cite this article:   
YUE Ling-Yun,FENG Ting-Yong,LI Sen-Sen, et al. The Differences of Individuals Having Different Regulatory Modes on Counterfactual Thinking: Evidence from An ERP Study[J]. , 2011, 43(03): 274-282.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/      OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2011/V43/I03/274
[1] DUAN Jinyun; SHI Jiayi; LING Bin. The influence of high commitment organization on employee voice behavior: A dual-process model examination[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(4): 539-553.
[2] YANG Zhaoning; GU Zibei; WANG Dujuan; TAN Xuyun; WANG Xiaoming. The effect of anger and sadness on prosocial decision making: The role of the interpersonal attribution of responsibility[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 393-403.
[3] ZHAO Simin; WU Yan; LI Tianhong; GUO Qingtong. Morpho-semantic processing in Chinese word recognition: An ERP study[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 296-306.
[4] ZHANG Lin; LIU Shen; XU Qiang; WU Xiaoyan; YANG Mengyuan. Long-term effect of violence exposure in real-life on aggressive behaviors: A moderated mediation model[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(1): 50-59.
[5] LI Caina; SUN Ying; TUO Rui; LIU Jia. The effects of attachment security on interpersonal trust: The moderating role of attachment anxiety[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(8): 989-1001.
[6] SONG Juan; GUO Fengbo; ZHANG Zhen; YUAN Sheng; JIN Hua; WANG Yiwen. Interpersonal distance influences on pain empathy: Friends priming effect[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(7): 833-844.
[7] LIU Fang; DING Jinhong; ZHANG Qin. Positive affect and selective attention: Approach-motivation intensity influences the early and late attention processing stages[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(7): 794-803.
[8] XU Ju; HU Yuanyan; WANG Shuang; LI Aisu; ZHANG Ming; ZHANG Yang. Cognitive neural mechanism of training effect on inhibition of return: Evidence from an ERP study[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(6): 658-670.
[9] WU Yan; MO Deyuan; WANG Haiying; YU Yiyang; CHEN Hsuan-Chih; ZHANG Ming. ERP effects of position-specific radicals in Chinese character recognition: Evidence from semantic categorization[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(6): 599-606.
[10] HUANG SiLin; HAN MingYue; ZHANG Mei. The impact of interpersonal relationship on social responsibility[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(5): 578-587.
[11] LIU Yun; LI Yanping; TU Yidong. Why employees help colleagues: A multilevel study on leader-member exchange and helping behavior[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(4): 385-397.
[12] CUI Nan, XU Lan, XIE Wenting. Which one makes you regret, to do or not to do?  The effect of self-regulatory mode on inaction inertia[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(4): 423-434.
[13] JIA Lei; ZHANG Chang-Jie; ZHANG Qing-lin. Cognitive mechanisms of the emotional attentional blink: Evidence from behavior and ERPs[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(2): 174-184.
[14] WANG Xieshun; WU Yan; ZHAO Simin; NI Chao; ZHANG Ming. The effects of semantic radicals and phonetic radicals in Chinese phonogram recognition[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(2): 130-140.
[15] LI Jing; CHEN Antao; CHEN Jie; LONG Changquan. The neural signs of categorization and property inferences during verbal category-based properties induction[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(11): 1410-1422.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech