Abstract:

The previous studies have indicated that the amount of counterfactual thinking impacts regret in the direction that the more counterfactual thinking the more regret, because regret involves reflect on one’s responsibility in the previous decision. From this perspective, regret could be interpretated as the result of counterfactual thinking. However, there is some evidence that the relation between counterfactual thinking and regret is moderated by some variables, such as the distance between performance and goal. On the other hand, it was suggested that regulatory mode may have important influence on regret. For example, people regret more in the action situation than in the non-action situation; however, this effect is stronger for the high-locomotion individuals than high-assessment individuals. In further, counterfactual thinking includes different types such as additive counterfactual thinking and subtractive counterfactual thinking, and regulatory focus involve situational regulatory mode and chronic regulatory mode. So, the present study probes to examine: whether the relation between counterfactual thinking and regret is influenced by regulatory mode taking the different types of counterfactual thinking into account, and whether there is any difference between chronic regulatory mode and situational regulatory mode on their influence upon relation between counterfactual thinking and regret. The hypnosis is as following: for both chronic and situational regulatory mode, assessment mode is related to subtractive counterfactual thinking, while locomotion mode is related to additive counterfactual thinking; regulatory mode (chronic or situational) is an moderator between counterfactual thinking and regret, to be in details, under locomotion mode, the more additive counterfactual thinking the more regret, the more subtractive counterfactual thinking the less regret; while under assessment mode, the more subtractive counterfactual thinking the more regret, the more additive counterfactual thinking the less regret. There are two experiments in this study which respectively probes into the relation among chronic or situational regulatory mode with counterfactual thinking and regret. In experiment 1, chronic regulatory mode, counterfactual thinking, and regret were measured among 57 college students. In experiment 2, situational regulatory mode was induced, and then counterfactual thinking and regret were measured among 90 college students. Based on the results of t-test, correlation analysis, and regression analysis, it is indicated that: 1) Subtractive counterfactual thinking has stable positive correlation with regret, additive counterfactual thinking is stably uncorrelated with regret, while the correlation between general counterfactual thinking and regret is unstable; 2) regardless of chronic or situational regulatory mode, evaluation mode is related with subtractive counterfactual thinking, while locomotion mode is related with additive counterfactual thinking; 3) Both chronic regulatory mode and situational regulatory mode could moderate the relation between counterfactual thinking and regret, to be in details, according to chronic regulatory mode, for the evaluative individuals, the more additive counterfactual thinking the more regret, according to chronic regulatory mode, when evaluation mode is induced, the more additive counterfactual thinking the more regret, while when locomotion mode is induced, the more additive counterfactual thinking the less regret. The findings are beneficial to understand the relation between counterfactual thinking and regret and the influence of regulatory mode on the relation, as well as the difference between chronic regulatory mode and situational regulatory mode.

Key words: regulatory mode, counterfactual thinking, regret, moderator

摘要：

已有研究表明反事实思维越多则后悔越强烈。本研究试图通过两项实验分别探讨特质性、情境性调节模式是否影响反事实思维与后悔之间的关系。结果表明：特质性调节模式及情境性调节模式均对反事实思维与后悔之间的关系具有调节作用，具体来说，针对情境性调节模式而言，运动模式下加法式思维越多则后悔越轻微，评估模式下加法式思维越多则后悔越强烈；针对特质性调节模式而言，运动模式下加法式思维越多则后悔越轻微。

关键词: 调节模式, 反事实思维, 后悔, 调节作用