Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9717TS Groningen, The Netherlands.
London Business School, Sussex Place, Regent's Park, London NW1 4SA, UK.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2022 Dec 19;377(1866):20210342. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0342. Epub 2022 Oct 31.
Four studies examine how political partisanship qualifies previously documented regularities in people's counterfactual thinking ( = 1186 Democrats and Republicans). First, whereas prior work finds that people generally prefer to think about how things could have been better instead of worse (i.e. entertain counterfactuals in an upward versus downward direction), studies 1a-2 find that partisans are more likely to generate and endorse counterfactuals in whichever direction best aligns with their political views. Second, previous research finds that the closer someone comes to causing a negative event, the more blame that person receives; study 3 finds that this effect is more pronounced among partisans who oppose (versus support) a leader who 'almost' caused a negative event. Thus, partisan reasoning may influence which alternatives to reality people will find most plausible, will be most likely to imagine spontaneously, and will view as sufficient grounds for blame. This article is part of the theme issue 'Thinking about possibilities: mechanisms, ontogeny, functions and phylogeny'.
四项研究考察了政治党派立场如何使人们反事实思维中的先前记录的规律性变得复杂(=1186 名民主党人和共和党人)。首先,尽管先前的工作发现人们通常更愿意思考事情本来可以变得更好而不是更糟(即向上或向下的方向思考反事实),但研究 1a-2 发现,党派人士更有可能生成并支持与他们的政治观点最一致的反事实。其次,先前的研究发现,一个人越接近导致负面事件,他就会受到更多的指责;研究 3 发现,在反对(而非支持)一个“几乎”导致负面事件的领导人的党派人士中,这种影响更为明显。因此,党派思维可能会影响人们认为最合理、最有可能自发想象的现实替代方案,以及将其视为指责充分依据的方案。本文是“思考可能性:机制、个体发生、功能和系统发生”主题问题的一部分。